Animals have rights but is it OK to eat them??

Animals have rights, yet I submit that we should still masticate them. This is not a contradiction, merely a poor attempt to create one.

Humans have rights, animals do not.

Questioner wrote:

Animals have rights, yet I submit that we should still masticate them. This is not a contradiction, merely a poor attempt to create one.

Quote:

Humans have rights, animals do not.

Do you think that 'animals' have rights? If so, what are they?

Forgive me, please ignore the word 'rights' and replace with 'are somewhat protect' I meant to go back and do that, but in my rush to begin eating my lunch 'Steak sandwhich, quite tasty' I neglected to do so.

Thanks for the catch.

Carl Cohen writes:
"The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked."

How would you defend the rights of babies or the mentally ill? Would they also be subject only to certain protections?

Carl Cohen writes:
"The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked."

Questioner wrote:

Carl Cohen writes:
"The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked."

How would you justify the rights of babies or the mentally ill? Should they also be subject only to certain protections?

echi wrote:

Questioner wrote:

Carl Cohen writes:
"The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked."

How would you justify the rights of babies or the mentally ill? Should they also be subject only to certain protections?

In these instances, the baby or mentally ill is under the care of a guardian who has rights, and therefore ensures their rights.

Questioner wrote:

echi wrote:

Questioner wrote:

Carl Cohen writes:
"The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked."

How would you justify the rights of babies or the mentally ill? Should they also be subject only to certain protections?

In these instances, the baby or mentally ill is under the care of a guardian who has rights, and therefore ensures their rights.

The creation and application of these "rights" seem awfully subjective. On what principles or reasons are they based?

I still contend that this person's definition of "rights" is subjective. Why must the holders of rights have the capacity to comprehend anything? And if exceptions can be made for children, etc., then why can none be made for (non-human) animals?

echi wrote:

I still contend that this person's definition of "rights" is subjective. Why must the holders of rights have the capacity to comprehend anything? And if exceptions can be made for children, etc., then why can none be made for (non-human) animals?

You are contending it because it appears you are still trying to make it fit your mold so that you MAY contend it. I've already explained why that doesn't fit.

Try this. If you can undeniably prove that a dog, ANY dog, has a basic understanding of the Bill of Rights and what it means for those of us living under it's influence then I'll concede to your point.

The whole idea of "rights" does appear to be a matter of opinion and preference, and I think there are enough reasons to not mistreat animals without having to rely on such concepts.

Garlic mashed potatoes? Never had them before. sounds nice though.

echi wrote:

The whole idea of "rights" does appear to be a matter of opinion and preference, and I think there are enough reasons to not mistreat animals without having to rely on such concepts.

A stray dog apparently has no "rights".
Do I then have the right to skin it alive and set it on fire?