Haha, yeah I did a logical error. And I did blur priveleges with rights. My bad.
I think we should first define what “abuse” is?
Let’s define it as kicking for reasons other than retribution or deterrence.
What’s the difference between abusing a dog and abusing a person?
Personally none really, it makes the “abuser’s” ego satisfied and the “abused” end up suffering.
I don’t want to get into hypotheticals here…
There is no difference in abusing a dog and abusing a human (person) based on a context of “animal rights”–because we are both animals.
Let’s say someone disagreed and thought that there was a distinction between humans and dogs which made it less permissible to abuse a human.
How would it have to be justified?
They would already have justified it through their disagreement. The disagreement is a result of their bias.
So to me, the justification would then depend on how reasonable that person is.
Now the real question stems from what do we consider as abusive?
No matter what is the object of the abuse, once we consider it as abusive, it is therefore deemed as something bad.
Well that’s my thoughts on the issue of abusing.
But we do have very effective ways and acceptable ways to channel frustration, anger and pain. We can release it through competition. We have sports, games , online games, computer games. Games that are bloody,grisly and violent enough to satisfy emotions. The actual abuse remains controled in our heads not in our bodies and not harming a life just to feel better. Hmm, now Smears there is a thought for you. Rehabilitation through computer games. Violent people learning to control their emotions through the participation in violent games. They release the emotions onto characters in the games giving some clearness of mind so that a counseler might get through to them? If done right you may have a viable rehabilition program for some lesser violent criminals. Channeling emotions is a good idea, sort of like the release of steam from a pressure cooker. If you want to make your mark this might be a good way for you to do so with your inquisitive mind.
Go get the most violent graphic game you can find and play it rather than kick a dog that would only want to protect and love you in its own way, if you are kind to it. You will feel better. I know I do when I play those games.
Wii I think offers interactive violent games. If not, they should!
I should look for a game where you get to kick a dog.
Do humans have rights? Humans are animals.
The concept of rights does not exist outside our brains. The question should be something along the lines of “should we grant animals rights?”. I say human-like animals should be granted limited rights.
They should all be given the right of freedom.
Freedom of what?
Runnig naked and eating their children? I think they are already in that state.
It was only a matter of time before i found this thread…
Peter singer has some work published which makes a case for moral rights on the gorunds of suffering, but you are using the term “rights” too loosely…
Rights in modern use means things like voting and innocent until proven guilty… Animals have no use for any of our established right because they are not a part of the legal system.
We do not try horses for murder so it follows that horses don’t get to roam freely through our society…
When you think “intrinsic right” or “innate right” we ourselves feel that because we are equal to other people, that other people don’t have the right to abuse us or cause us harm…
Logic then tells us that we cannot do this to them aswell…
In this case rights are merely a respected agreement between two rational agents…
The only difference when we think of rational agents and animals is that the animal cannot make the logical connection of mutual respect (not in all cases, dogs exhibit respect).
So harm is justified to the anmal if the animal poses a risk to humans because of its lack of respect…
In most cases, respect is not needed from the animal… we are by far the dominant species on this earth and we can kill any of its creatures at will. Most of the time a 5 year old girl is highly dangerous to a gold fish. this is a case where the child has no respect for the fish… usually we would stop a child from doing this to a fish (why?)
is it because we don’t want to have to buy another fish?
or because we don’t want to see the fish suffer?
Talking about innate morals is very non phlosophical… The rights of animals consist of a 0 base line type respect…
They do not have the right to assert their presence of anything, but they do not deserve anti-rights
Anti-rights are when we cause them unnecessary pain… causing them unnecessary pain is a deliberate action designed to inflict suffering…
In terms of innate morals, if the fish cannot hurt you, if you were the fish, would you want someone to gruesomely kill you?
would you enjoy the experience?
Respect for our fellow man is something we do out of necessity… there is no physical law prohibiting it…
Extending respect to all living things is optional givin that it requires energy, but causing it unnecessary pain (which takes energy) is by no means “innately moral”
the emperialist would show which being is superior or which being could feel more pain, or which being is more important…
Wonderer - you’re just incorrect here. You are using the word “rights” only in the legal sense. Singer is talking about moral rights. There is a long tradition that supports his usage, and that tradition has been followed to the present day. I do not think rights are a very good moral device, myself, but the definition Singer uses is perfectly legitimate - and uncontroversial. What’s debatable is whether or not animals can be seen as moral agents.
Innate rights are those a moral agent has regardless of any other factor - including how we feel about those rights. Or the law in any given time or place.
You’re just making stuff up. Philosophers just don’t use the word 'right" in the way you describe. You are, as always, free to use stipulative defitinions, but simply trashing two thousand years of usage withut argumentation does your case no good.
i said you were using the term to loosely…
Singer used the term rights in the sense that the rights he referrd to was the right no to have unnecessary suffering inflicted upon something, or unnecessary harm to ones interests.
i was trying to clarify…
there is no innate sense of rights…
it is my innate right that killing a stranger is wrong
it is a vikings innate right that killing a stranger brings great honor…
baulderdash…
you complain about my abuse of your precious words 
there’s no point in throwing out an argument because you don’t like the way it rolls of your tounge… seriously now…
The term “Rights” as defined by “having responsibility” is not the term singer used so i clarified… jesus you’re picky.
I’m not even sure if you read the entire post…
It is one thing to say there are no innate rights, and another to misstate what “innate rights” could sensically mean. I wasn’t arguing that these rights exist - I don’t think they do. I was arguing that you have rendered the idea incoherent.
Yeah, maybe I’m picky. But no one who has actually read any philosophy would know what you are talking about.
Oh yeah, that would only be about three or four posters here.
Never mind.