Animal Rights

[Michael]

I keep thinking about the implications of all these "human rights" theories that I keep hearing about.

The more I read about "human rights", the more I keep thinking, doesn't the same logic apply to "animal rights" too?

If humans have magically endowed human rights, why don't animals have the same rights magically endowed by the same process?

In other words, if humans have "human rights" then animals must have "animal rights".

I don't see any way around this without getting all hypocritical (like saying humans are "special").

[Greendruid]

Humans are special. We were created last by God and given domain over all the creatures on the land and the birds in the air and the fish under the sea. Damn it's good to be a talking ape!

[dilettante]

I keep thinking about the implications of all these "human rights" theories that I keep hearing about.

The more I read about "human rights", the more I keep thinking, doesn't the same logic apply to "animal rights" too?

If humans have magically endowed human rights, why don't animals have the same rights magically endowed by the same process?

In other words, if humans have "human rights" then animals must have "animal rights".

I don't see any way around this without getting all hypocritical (like saying humans are "special").

No doubt. But then, humans are "special," or at least different. That is to say, if humans have "human rights" because they are human, then it follows that dogs might have "dog rights" because they are dogs. It doesn't necessarily follow that "dog rights" and "human rights" would be the same; in fact it would be rather odd if they were, given how different dogs and humans are.

Perhaps the question shouldn't be "Does animal X have rights?" so much as "What sort of rights does an animal such as X have?"

[drgoodtrips]

I think I could play devil's advocate by saying that human rights are special because rights only exist when they're dreamed up, claimed, and enforced. Only humans do that.

Of course, in my scenario, there is nothing "magical" at all, so perhaps I'm not advocating for the devil as your OP is concerned.

[Michael]

I think I could play devil's advocate by saying that human rights are special because rights only exist when they're dreamed up, claimed, and enforced. Only humans do that.
Why can't these rights be dreamed up, claimed and enforced for animals by humans?

If "natural rights" are genuine, then animals ought to have them since humans are merely one particular class of animal. If rights are "natural" for humans, they are thus equally "natural" for all other animals.

Of course, in my scenario, there is nothing "magical" at all, so perhaps I'm not advocating for the devil as your OP is concerned.
I used the term "magical" to cover off both the "God-origin" of rights and/or the mysterious process that produces "natural rights", if God isn't the author.

[Michael]

No doubt. But then, humans are "special," or at least different. That is to say, if humans have "human rights" because they are human, then it follows that dogs might have "dog rights" because they are dogs. It doesn't necessarily follow that "dog rights" and "human rights" would be the same; in fact it would be rather odd if they were, given how different dogs and humans are.

Perhaps the question shouldn't be "Does animal X have rights?" so much as "What sort of rights does an animal such as X have?"
The angle I'm getting at here is the origin of the rights.

Clearly, as Greendruid pointed out above, if God is the origin of "rights" then it follows (according to the Bible) that rights belong to humans and no one else.

But if God is not the origin of rights and rights are held to be "natural", that necessarily implies that all animals ought to have them.

Unless of course there is no such thing as "natural rights". If rights are just arbitrary things invented by humans, then yes, it follows that these rights belong only to humans.

That's my real point here. I'm just trying to illustrate the absurdity of the idea of "natural rights" and further buttress my long standing argument that "rights" are entirely arbitarary and human-constructed things that only exist insofar as some humans will enforce said 'rights'. No enforcement of any given 'right' means that 'right' doesn't exist.

[drgoodtrips]

Why can't these rights be dreamed up, claimed and enforced for animals by humans?

They can, and are... :shrug: (idiotic as I find it, personally)

If "natural rights" are genuine, then animals ought to have them since humans are merely one particular class of animal. If rights are "natural" for humans, they are thus equally "natural" for all other animals.

Well, to continue on the line of thought, though it isn't really mine, humans have them because they are claiming them in their own interest. Try as a human might, he or she cannot really know what is in an animal's interest.

[Michael]

Well, to continue on the line of thought, though it isn't really mine, humans have them because they are claiming them in their own interest. Try as a human might, he or she cannot really know what is in an animal's interest.
That admits that "natural rights" are actually human-created ones. If they are human-created rights, they aren't "natural" at all.

[bug]

The angle I'm getting at here is the origin of the rights.

Clearly, as Greendruid pointed out above, if God is the origin of "rights" then it follows (according to the Bible) that rights belong to humans and no one else.

But if God is not the origin of rights and rights are held to be "natural", that necessarily implies that all animals ought to have them.

Unless of course there is no such thing as "natural rights". If rights are just arbitrary things invented by humans, then yes, it follows that these rights belong only to humans.

That's my real point here. I'm just trying to illustrate the absurdity of the idea of "natural rights" and further buttress my long standing argument that "rights" are entirely arbitarary and human-constructed things that only exist insofar as some humans will enforce said 'rights'. No enforcement of any given 'right' means that 'right' doesn't exist.

hmm... doesn't everything, whether "natural" or not, need to originate from something? Noone looks at a building and goes, "I wonder if that building just appeared"- it is assumed there is an origin or creator. Rights have to come from somewhere. Whatever you determine the source is dictates how you will see rights. It depends on whether you think things come from God, humans, or the sun, kinetic energy, karma, and who knows what else. The difficulty is finding a source we can agree on, and something even more impossible-a common way of interpreting that source. "Nature" is the first step in a series of many questions someone who takes the argument of natural rights has to expand upon- what's the source of nature? "It just IS, maaaannn" doesn't count, hippies. The rights of man or animal cannot be determined without ground rules of where they come from. I think that's my problem with any sort of natural right. It needs to be taken a step further.

[Greendruid]

That admits that "natural rights" are actually human-created ones. If they are human-created rights, they aren't "natural" at all.

I see a problem with this if I may play devil's advocate here for a moment. If humans are natural creatures, unremarkable and non-special as you argue, then it follows that as such, that which originates from us is natural inasmuch as that which originates from, say, chimpanzees is natural. Our creation of "human rights" is one part of being human for those humans who created them.

Is imagination unnatural? Is language unnatural? Is a human social group any more unnatural than a coyote social pack?

My point is that there is a problem similar to the one you've already pointed out with stating that human creations are somehow unnatural or that human behaviours are somehow unnatural if you already define humans as being natural.

[drgoodtrips]

That admits that "natural rights" are actually human-created ones. If they are human-created rights, they aren't "natural" at all.

Hmm... well, perhaps animals don't have them because whatever magical entity doles out these rights doesn't think that animals ought to have them... :p

And, actually, going back to your original post, you mention that the 'logic' of natural rights would imply animal rights. But, isn't the magical entity that you propose, by definition, outside of the bounds of logic?

[drgoodtrips]

Noone looks at a building and goes, "I wonder if that building just appeared"

I think if you squint and read the Bible literally enough, you're supposed to think just that.

[Michael]

Hmm... well, perhaps animals don't have them because whatever magical entity doles out these rights doesn't think that animals ought to have them... :p

And, actually, going back to your original post, you mention that the 'logic' of natural rights would imply animal rights. But, isn't the magical entity that you propose, by definition, outside of the bounds of logic?
Yes, a supernatural entity is outside the bounds of logic. But that only applies if God is held to be the source of "natural rights". Most people here don't take that line of argument, so I'm not really addressing the God-origin of rights.

What I'm attacking here is the non-God origin of "natural rights" that is somehow outside of arbitrary human artifice. That logic points directly to "animal rights".

[Michael]

hmm... doesn't everything, whether "natural" or not, need to originate from something? Noone looks at a building and goes, "I wonder if that building just appeared"- it is assumed there is an origin or creator.
I look at the universe and don't assume a creator.

I look at human beings and don't assume a creator.

Assuming a creator is not necessarily logical in such cases.

Rights have to come from somewhere.
Yes, we are all agreed on this key point.

Whatever you determine the source is dictates how you will see rights. It depends on whether you think things come from God, humans, or the sun, kinetic energy, karma, and who knows what else. The difficulty is finding a source we can agree on, and something even more impossible-a common way of interpreting that source.
I hold that it is illogical to look for a source for any given human expression or act outside of humans.

"Nature" is the first step in a series of many questions someone who takes the argument of natural rights has to expand upon- what's the source of nature? "It just IS, maaaannn" doesn't count, hippies. The rights of man or animal cannot be determined without ground rules of where they come from. I think that's my problem with any sort of natural right. It needs to be taken a step further.
And that's what I'm doing here. I'm seeking to logically discount all assertions of "natural rights" as absurd by definition.

Asserting a non-human origin for any "rights" at all, defies logic. That first step you refer to is the core of the problem. It is an arbitrary assertion without basis in logic. :)

[Michael]

I see a problem with this if I may play devil's advocate here for a moment.
Where's that damn "devil's advocate smilie"!!! Our collection will never be complete without it!

If humans are natural creatures, unremarkable and non-special as you argue, then it follows that as such, that which originates from us is natural inasmuch as that which originates from, say, chimpanzees is natural. Our creation of "human rights" is one part of being human for those humans who created them.
This is a tricky point. ;)

On the one hand, we have beaver dams, on the other, nuclear missiles.

Now I think it is reasonable, common sensical and entirely rational, to assert that nuclear missiles are "un-natural" insofar as they would not "naturally" appear in the world without a massive amount of human artificial construction. The world of flora and fauna (as it were) could not produce a nuclear missile without thousands of intermediate stages, each of which was invented/constructed by humans, and humans alone. For example, steel does not exist in nature without human artifice. Ergo, I think "steel" is unnatural as a physical object, though it may be understood to be natural for humans to have constructed it. ;)

Unfortunately, this distinction suggests that beaver dams would also be "un-natural" as a physical object since it could ONLY be in existence due to the massive amount of beaver construction 'art' applied to build it, though of course, that beavers go about doing this is obviously 'natural' as well.

As I said, a tricky issue. Anyone have any ideas on how to resolve it?

Is imagination unnatural? Is language unnatural? Is a human social group any more unnatural than a coyote social pack?
I agree that all of these 'things' are very natural.

However, I should like to point out that "language" and "social groups" as things qua things, are not actually physical material objects (such as beaver dams or nuclear missiles).

My point is that there is a problem similar to the one you've already pointed out with stating that human creations are somehow unnatural or that human behaviours are somehow unnatural if you already define humans as being natural.
Yes, that's the tricky problem referenced above. :D

Normally speaking, I like to draw a distinction between "artifice" and "nature". Artifice to refer to human acts of 'material creation' while I use the word nature to refer to non-human material creation.

I'm not sure if that's sufficient to make this point though... :ummm:

[dilettante]

The angle I'm getting at here is the origin of the rights.

Clearly, as Greendruid pointed out above, if God is the origin of "rights" then it follows (according to the Bible) that rights belong to humans and no one else.

But if God is not the origin of rights and rights are held to be "natural", that necessarily implies that all animals ought to have them.

Hmmm. I'm pretty sure neither of those statements is logically sound.

If "rights" originate from a Divine source, that in no way necessitates their applying only to humans; the God(s) in question may just as easily have granted rights to animals, plants or minerals (or angels, for that matter). And, IIRC, the Bible does not speak in the language of rights, except as relates to God Himself. In that context, your life is inviolate because it is precious to God, not because you yourself have any "right" to it. If anything, the New Testement argues against embracing such personal rights.

As for the second statement, even if rights are something human's just "have" (a nonsensical concept, IMO, but I'll get to that below), it hardly follows that animals must "have" exactly the same ones. Humans "naturally" have thumbs; it does not therefore follow that all animals must have them as well.


Unless of course there is no such thing as "natural rights". If rights are just arbitrary things invented by humans, then yes, it follows that these rights belong only to humans. (emphasis mine)

I think that's the issue of the dilemma right there. Rights are not "things." It is merely in abstraction (and a tragically confusing one) that we can talk about someone "having" rights.
Rights are, essentially, a subset of negative moral imperatives. Saying "Humans have a right to life" is saying nothing more than saying "It is morally wrong to deprive a human of his/her life." As such, "human rights" are merely the set of such negative moral imperatives that relate to humans; "animal rights" are the set relating to animals.


That's my real point here. I'm just trying to illustrate the absurdity of the idea of "natural rights" and further buttress my long standing argument that "rights" are entirely arbitarary and human-constructed things that only exist insofar as some humans will enforce said 'rights'. No enforcement of any given 'right' means that 'right' doesn't exist.

Given my above definition, it is absurd and entirely unhelpful to ask if rights "exist". It's like asking "Does 'thou shall not kill' exist?" Such questions make no sense and, even if they did, wouldn't really matter. More relevant questions would be whether or not a given set of rights are meaningful and whether or not one accepts the moral imperative(s) they express.

Finally, I object the necessary connection between human-constructiveness and arbitrariness. Mathematics is "human-constructed"; it is not arbitrary. The moral imperatives that make up "human rights" may or may not be arbitrary, but the fact that they are human constructs is irrelevant to that question.

[SMadsen]

Lack of "animal rights" has nothing to do with divine treatment or with humans being any kind of special, remarkable, outstanding creatures.

It has to do with the simple requirement that a right must be understood in order to assign responsibility for violation.

We don't understand what rights other animals may grant us, if any, and other animals don't understand what rights we may grant them, if any. Therefore, granting each other rights is completely worthless since neither of us will have a single clue when or if a right has been violated.

We may, however, make certain acts towards other animals illegal. But that has nothing to do with rights, of course :)

[Michael]

Hmmm. I'm pretty sure neither of those statements is logically sound.

If "rights" originate from a Divine source, that in no way necessitates their applying only to humans; the God(s) in question may just as easily have granted rights to animals, plants or minerals (or angels, for that matter). And, IIRC, the Bible does not speak in the language of rights, except as relates to God Himself. In that context, your life is inviolate because it is precious to God, not because you yourself have any "right" to it. If anything, the New Testement argues against embracing such personal rights.
If by "divine" one refers to the Christian God, then animals clearly have no rights - it is stated explicitly in the bible that "man has dominion" over the animal kingdom.

As for the second statement, even if rights are something human's just "have" (a nonsensical concept, IMO, but I'll get to that below), it hardly follows that animals must "have" exactly the same ones. Humans "naturally" have thumbs; it does not therefore follow that all animals must have them as well.
Humans evolved to have thumbs. Other animals have done this. Others may do so as well.

Besides, that analogy is not valid at all. Rights are conceptual constructions. Thumbs are physical objects. They are not the same thing at all.

However, it does follow that if humans have these 'rights' as a function of the theory that "life is sacred" then it does follow that animals ought to have the same rights.

I think that's the issue of the dilemma right there. Rights are not "things." It is merely in abstraction (and a tragically confusing one) that we can talk about someone "having" rights.
Rights are, essentially, a subset of negative moral imperatives. Saying "Humans have a right to life" is saying nothing more than saying "It is morally wrong to deprive a human of his/her life." As such, "human rights" are merely the set of such negative moral imperatives that relate to humans; "animal rights" are the set relating to animals.
The asserted "human rights" belonging to a fetus are not "negative" rights at all. They are asserted as "positive" rights belonging to the fetus - that such positive rights ought to force a positive act by the mother.

And the right to a fair trial is not merely the negative right to be excused from kangaroo courts. Such a right requires major undertakings by the state to fulfill your positive right.

Negative and positive as descriptions of the nature of rights don't always hold up under examination. As categoricals, they are rather ambiguous and very flexible.

A further example of this for illustration: take the 'right not to be murdered' - which is as we have all been brainwashed into believing is a 'negative' right - others are prohibited from killing you - there is no positive component to this right. However, to make the right 'real', there is a huge investment by the state to give 'positive' effect to your 'negative' right (hiring cops, building jails, building/running courts, creating law codes, providing legal aid, etc.).

Given my above definition, it is absurd and entirely unhelpful to ask if rights "exist". It's like asking "Does 'thou shall not kill' exist?" Such questions make no sense and, even if they did, wouldn't really matter. More relevant questions would be whether or not a given set of rights are meaningful and whether or not one accepts the moral imperative(s) they express.
That seems like semantics. Asking if "rights" exist is the same as asking if "rights" are real and is the same as asking if "rights" are meaningful.

Of course "thou shall not kill" exists as a phrase. As such, it is probably inscribed in stone in a few places. Clearly the phrase exists. But it does make sense to ask if the phrase has any substantial or realistic meaning beyond the rhetorical.

When I ask if a right exists, I'm asking if there is any real or substantial meaning to that right - outside of any given subjective.

Finally, I object the necessary connection between human-constructiveness and arbitrariness. Mathematics is "human-constructed"; it is not arbitrary. The moral imperatives that make up "human rights" may or may not be arbitrary, but the fact that they are human constructs is irrelevant to that question.
Many human constructions are arbitrary. Some would argue that most of them are. Some human constructions are not arbitrary.

I'm looking for a distinction between constructions that are 'conceptual' and constructions that are 'material'. Clearly all constructions are artifice.

[Michael]

Lack of "animal rights" has nothing to do with divine treatment or with humans being any kind of special, remarkable, outstanding creatures.

It has to do with the simple requirement that a right must be understood in order to assign responsibility for violation.
I'll agree with this for discussion purposes.

We don't understand what rights other animals may grant us, if any, and other animals don't understand what rights we may grant them, if any. Therefore, granting each other rights is completely worthless since neither of us will have a single clue when or if a right has been violated.
I disagree with this. I have a right to kill insects, mice and rats, at will, on my property. I do not have a right to kill dogs or cats (or raccoons) on my property.

This sure makes it look like dogs have a right not to be killed (just like humans in western society). Jurisdictions and laws exist to assign punishment to any violation of the dog's right not to be killed.

Indeed, if a dog were to attack/kill another dog, the attacking dog would be arrested, charged and likely executed by the state judicial authorities.

[QUOTE=SMadsen]We may, however, make certain acts towards other animals illegal. But that has nothing to do with rights, of course :)
Why not? Sure looks like that's exactly what we are doing. It is illegal to kill humans. Ergo, humans have a right not to be murdered. It is illegal to kill dogs. Ergo, dogs have a right not to be murdered.

[dilettante]

If by "divine" one refers to the Christian God, then animals clearly have no rights - it is stated explicitly in the bible that "man has dominion" over the animal kingdom.

Meh. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn" (Duet. 25:4).
The Bible doesn't deal in the language of rights, and certainly not animal rights; one has to stretch terms and verses (whether it be the word "dominion" or the apparent right of oxen to eat while working) to fit them into such constructs.

But regardless, whether one is refering to the "Christian God" or some unnamed diety, there's nothing about "God-ness" that prevents the granting of rights no non-human organisms.

The "If rights are from God then animals don't have them" claim requires a rather specific knowledge of the God in question; a specificity I doubt many sacred texts bother with on that subject.


Humans evolved to have thumbs. Other animals have done this. Others may do so as well.

Besides, that analogy is not valid at all. Rights are conceptual constructions. Thumbs are physical objects. They are not the same thing at all.

However, it does follow that if humans have these 'rights' as a function of the theory that "life is sacred" then it does follow that animals ought to have the same rights.

IF that is the basic theory behind rights, then yes, obviously all they would apply to all life equally. But that theory seems no more necessary than one that says "human life is sacred" or the ever popular "human life and the life of cute animals is sacred". And why stop at life? Why not "Things are sacred"?

The point is, unless there's some already accepted foundation behind the "life is sacred" theory, then it's no less logical to narrow the definition of precisely which life is sacred.


The asserted "human rights" belonging to a fetus are not "negative" rights at all. They are asserted as "positive" rights belonging to the fetus - that such positive rights ought to force a positive act by the mother.

And the right to a fair trial is not merely the negative right to be excused from kangaroo courts. Such a right requires major undertakings by the state to fulfill your positive right.

Actually I'd argue both of those points, but the second one is faster: your right to a fair trial is very much the negative right to be excused from kangaroo courts; the state bothers to go about constructing a legal trial because it wants to prosecute you and it isn't allowed to do so in a kangaroo court.
It's not like the state is obligated to put you on trial if it doesn't think there's a good reason to; you can't go demand to be tried for the murder of George Washington and say your rights are violated if the state doesn't put you on trial. The "right to a free trial" merely means that IF the state decides to try you for something, the trial must be fair.


Negative and positive as descriptions of the nature of rights don't always hold up under examination. As categoricals, they are rather ambiguous and very flexible.

I'll grant that.
There are certainly claims for "rights" that are positive in nature (ala "The right to healthcare"). But personally I consider labeling such things "rights" to be an abuse of the term.


A further example of this for illustration: take the 'right not to be murdered' - which is as we have all been brainwashed into believing is a 'negative' right - others are prohibited from killing you - there is no positive component to this right. However, to make the right 'real', there is a huge investment by the state to give 'positive' effect to your 'negative' right (hiring cops, building jails, building/running courts, creating law codes, providing legal aid, etc.).

I disagree; the "right not to be murdered" IS a negative right, regardless of how much effort goes into seeing that your right isn't violated.

It's an all to common (and needlessly confusing) error to confuse "having rights" with the "having one's rights upheld." If one has a right at all, one as it regardless of whether it is upheld or violated.

Otherwise, we would have to declare that anyone who actually WAS murdered somehow didn't have the right not to be, in which case their rights weren't violated by the murderer.

EDITED:
There's really two issues here:

On the one hand, there's what does/doesn't actually happen. This is the descriptive realm: you are murder or you aren't.

On the other hand there's what should/shouldn't happen to you. This is the imperative realm: you should be murdered or you shouldn't be. If you shouldn't be murdered, we say you have a "right to life."

Rights are entirely within the imperative realm, what happens descriptively is immaterial; thus you have right not to be murdered, even if some insane killer manages to sneak into your house and knock you off.

[Greendruid]

Meh. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn" (Duet. 25:4).
The Bible doesn't deal in the language of rights, and certainly not animal rights; one has to stretch terms and verses (whether it be the word "dominion" or the apparent right of oxen to eat while working) to fit them into such constructs.

But regardless, whether one is refering to the "Christian God" or some unnamed diety, there's nothing about "God-ness" that prevents the granting of rights no non-human organisms.

The "If rights are from God then animals don't have them" claim requires a rather specific knowledge of the God in question; a specificity I doubt many sacred texts bother with on that subject.

"Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Gen. 1:28).

Did I mention I was aiming to be a Catholic priest before I became pagan?

This passage from the Torah/Pentateuch/Old Testament clearly establishes for Judaism, Christianity and Islam that practitioners are to have regency over the whole fucking planet. This is the greatest split that Judaism found with the old pagan religions that did not promote this concept and probably one of the reasons Judaism found an enemy in the ancient Egyptian religion. I think there is no question in this, one of the oldest passages surviving from the Bible, that humans are to be the arbiters of all that "moves on the earth", period. This includes what we have come to call rights, be they human or otherwise.

[SMadsen]

I disagree with this. I have a right to kill insects, mice and rats, at will, on my property. I do not have a right to kill dogs or cats (or raccoons) on my property.

This sure makes it look like dogs have a right not to be killed (just like humans in western society). Jurisdictions and laws exist to assign punishment to any violation of the dog's right not to be killed.

Indeed, if a dog were to attack/kill another dog, the attacking dog would be arrested, charged and likely executed by the state judicial authorities.
Those are neither rights you have nor rights you're violating. Those are criminal codes, - meaning that you are either allowed or disallowed to kill said creatures because they are either unprotected or protected, respectively, by criminal code. By the same token, you are in fact not allowed to kill, say, in USA, Jerusalem crickets or Mount Hermon June beetles, which are both species of insects. Not becauce they have rights, nor because other insects don't have rights, but because their protection is justified by some common good (in principle, that is; arguing the common good of species protection acts will seriously sidetrack this thread :) )

IOW, that a creature doesn't have rights doesn't mean that acts towards it are legal. It just means that you're not required not to violate any freedom that it might have been granted.

Why not? Sure looks like that's exactly what we are doing. It is illegal to kill humans. Ergo, humans have a right not to be murdered. It is illegal to kill dogs. Ergo, dogs have a right not to be murdered.
Because of the justification involved. Rights are about the free expression of actions while criminal codes are about restricting actions.

Besides, it's a slippery slope. Do diamonds have the right not to be stolen just because it's illegal to steal them? :D

[The Drunk Guy]

Besides, it's a slippery slope. Do diamonds have the right not to be stolen just because it's illegal to steal them? :D Free the diamonds! I will gladly open a diamond habitat for them live freely. :angel:

[SMadsen]

I disagree; the "right not to be murdered" IS a negative right, regardless of how much effort goes into seeing that your right isn't violated.

It's an all to common (and needlessly confusing) error to confuse "having rights" with the "having one's rights upheld." If one has a right at all, one as it regardless of whether it is upheld or violated.

Otherwise, we would have to declare that anyone who actually WAS murdered somehow didn't have the right not to be, in which case their rights weren't violated by the murderer.

EDITED:
There's really two issues here:

On the one hand, there's what does/doesn't actually happen. This is the descriptive realm: you are murder or you aren't.

On the other hand there's what should/shouldn't happen to you. This is the imperative realm: you should be murdered or you shouldn't be. If you shouldn't be murdered, we say you have a "right to life."

Rights are entirely within the imperative realm, what happens descriptively is immaterial; thus you have right not to be murdered, even if some insane killer manages to sneak into your house and knock you off.
I forgot to address this in Michael's posting but now that I got around to read this post of yours, I'll rant after quoting you on the same issue :)


"The right not to be murdered" is not a right at all. You have as much right to be murdered as you have to, say, be raped. Or to breath or not to breath. Such rights have neither been granted nor repealed.

Acts such as murder and rape are, when done against you, criminal acts that have nothing to do with rights. The illegality of the acts can be justified by protection of the individual, a ressource, the state or of whatever has been agreed upon should be protected against such acts, but they're not justified by a protection of individual rights (which is not the same as protection of the individual).

In fact, only one of those acts happens to also violate a right directly, namely murder that happens to violate the right to live (unless such a right has been repealed by the granter of rights, i.e. the state, in which case murdering you is still murder but not a violation of your right). The other could be argued to violate, say, the right to privacy. Heck, for those radicals who think a rape victim is always asking for it, it could be argued to violate rights such as freedom of religion or freedom of expression. But, like there is nothing that says you have the right to live without getting murdered, there is actually no right that says you have the right to live without getting raped.

[SMadsen]

Free the diamonds! I will gladly open a diamond habitat for them live freely. :angel:
By the same logic, there is also a right for turds not to be left in the streets of NYC. Now, there's an idea for creating a free habitat ;)

[Michael]

Acts such as murder and rape are, when done against you, criminal acts that have nothing to do with rights. The illegality of the acts can be justified by protection of the individual, a ressource, the state or of whatever has been agreed upon should be protected against such acts, but they're not justified by a protection of individual rights (which is not the same as protection of the individual).
What legal system are you citing here? Sounds like Napoleonic law code to me (especially the part about 'state resources'). Such reasoning is monsterous and antithetical in Common law jurisdictions.

According to the Common Law, any attack (murder, assault) upon a person is a violation of their rights of personhood. One's body is held to be "property" of the self under the law.

(sideline question - how did Denmark, that contributed so much to the creation of English Common Law, end up ruled by that Napoleonic monstrosity of a law code loved by autocrats everywhere?)

In fact, only one of those acts happens to also violate a right directly, namely murder that happens to violate the right to live (unless such a right has been repealed by the granter of rights, i.e. the state, in which case murdering you is still murder but not a violation of your right). The other could be argued to violate, say, the right to privacy. Heck, for those radicals who think a rape victim is always asking for it, it could be argued to violate rights such as freedom of religion or freedom of expression. But, like there is nothing that says you have the right to live without getting murdered, there is actually no right that says you have the right to live without getting raped.
Seems like your argument is inconsistent here.

These rights are established by law with sanctions/punishments duly scheduled. Earlier, you stated that was a requirement of a right. These things have them yet they are not rights?

[SMadsen]

What legal system are you citing here? Sounds like Napoleonic law code to me (especially the part about 'state resources'). Such reasoning is monsterous and antithetical in Common law jurisdictions.

According to the Common Law, any attack (murder, assault) upon a person is a violation of their rights of personhood. One's body is held to be "property" of the self under the law.
Michael, I said resources, then a comma and then state. I didn't say "state resources" anywhere (I know you don't make such obvious strawmen, so I'll attribute it to a simple misreading :) ).

It was actually with things like species protection acts in mind but in general it's any resource at all. If we stick to the living, biodiversity is, as a resource, also protected by laws dealing with GMO crops, habitat regulations etc. Transport, for example, is yet another resource, the guaranteed existence of which is protected by a variety of laws.

We protect resources that we consider good, useful and purposeful, or, at the very least vital, for the continued function of society. Not for securing human rights.

In fact, I'll submit that human rights, although in a more fundamental manner, serves the exact same purpose, namely the continued function of society. I consider this to be one of the main reasons that people become prone to misunderstand the concept of human rights and, erronueously, include things like a right to be free from poverty, right to drive, right to healthcare and, yes, animal rights.

(sideline question - how did Denmark, that contributed so much to the creation of English Common Law, end up ruled by that Napoleonic monstrosity of a law code loved by autocrats everywhere?)
I might just happen to agree with you, but I need examples of what you mean, please.

Seems like your argument is inconsistent here.

These rights are established by law with sanctions/punishments duly scheduled. Earlier, you stated that was a requirement of a right. These things have them yet they are not rights?
What "these rights" are you referring to?

And what are "these things" and what do "these things" have?

[Michael]

Michael, I said resources, then a comma and then state. I didn't say "state resources" anywhere (I know you don't make such obvious strawmen, so I'll attribute it to a simple misreading :) ).
Upon review of your post above, it most certainly appears that are saying that laws exist against killing and/or rape only in so far as the state is acting to protect a general interest against violence or something like that. That is to say, the so-called 'right not to be murdered' is only a manifestation of the legal principle against killing people.

I strongly disagree with that viewpoint (whether it be yours or not). ;)

One only has to review the last eight centuries of legal history to see that such laws against killing or rape or assault are driven by the status of the victim not the act. The act is determined to be 'illegal' or not, based entirely upon the (socio-political) status of the victim, not the character of the action itself.

Women, children, slaves, servants or non-citizens have long been categorized differently with respect to the law about killing/rape/assault, etc. That is because of the different status of 'rights' the victim (or the perpetrator) may have (or not have).

My assertion here is that laws against killing and/or rape and/or assault exist specifically as an extention of the rights of the powerful not to be abused (and is a demonstration of their power to create/enforce such 'laws' to defend their rights).

Btw, I've long considered the whole modern history of legal rights to consist of the process whereby the 'legal rights' stated or recognized in Magna Carta (1215 AD) to about a dozen specifically named English 'barons' are gradually extended, by much effort and bloodshed, to apply to ever larger classes of people over time. Eventually, the rights of Magna Carta may be legally recognized as belonging to every human being, but we are still a long ways away from that point.

It was actually with things like species protection acts in mind but in general it's any resource at all. If we stick to the living, biodiversity is, as a resource, also protected by laws dealing with GMO crops, habitat regulations etc. Transport, for example, is yet another resource, the guaranteed existence of which is protected by a variety of laws.
Yes, these laws are created by powerful interests to protect their rights and property (and property rights) with respect to these resources.

I hold that the law is not universally recognized nor fully rational or logical. The law is an instrument of human enterprise - and thus varies from place to place, and from time to time.

Btw, there are no laws dealing with GMO crops that are recognized outside of Europe.

We protect resources that we consider good, useful and purposeful, or, at the very least vital, for the continued function of society. Not for securing human rights.
On the contrary. Laws, more often than not, serve the private interest of corporations (who have legal standing as eternal citizens in themselves). Sometimes laws are as you describe them, sometimes they are not. Sometimes, the law is an ass.

In fact, I'll submit that human rights, although in a more fundamental manner, serves the exact same purpose, namely the continued function of society. I consider this to be one of the main reasons that people become prone to misunderstand the concept of human rights and, erronueously, include things like a right to be free from poverty, right to drive, right to healthcare and, yes, animal rights.
That just doesn't fit with the historical record. Serfs in Czarist Russia in the early 20th century could be legally killed for sport.

Russian law recognized that those Russian serfs had no rights at all.

Now I happen to think that a 'right to be free from poverty' or a 'right to healthcare' and indeed, 'animal rights' can and likely will become recognized eventually. Indeed, I think that just might be a good reply to the 'What is Western Society?' thread question. It is a culture that recognizes that people can have particular rights. What is recognized as 'a right' has been in constant flux for 800 years now - always increasing in scope and effect.

On that basis, I think it is reasonable (and hopeful) to postulate that the process of expanding rights (and who they apply to) may continue to increase into the future.

I might just happen to agree with you, but I need examples of what you mean, please.
My statement was rhetorical. I like to 'razz' Europeans about that hideous Napoleonic code legal system that is used all over Europe. :D

I'm referring to the distinction between Common law (aka 'case law') vs Code law. It is a fundamental distinction of legal systems by type or foundational principle and has significant impact upon how law exists and operates.

I fear that much of what I say on the topic of 'rights' and 'law' is very much affected by this issue. From a European perspective, my arguments probably don't make much sense. And from an English law perspective, your statements here really don't make much sense to me.

I suppose I ought to start a thread about Common Law (England, USA and most of the Commonwealth) vs Code Law (Europe and the rest of the planet) legal systems. :)

What "these rights" are you referring to?

The one's I've bolded...
Originally Posted by SMadsen View Post
In fact, only one of those acts happens to also violate a right directly, namely murder that happens to violate the right to live (unless such a right has been repealed by the granter of rights, i.e. the state, in which case murdering you is still murder but not a violation of your right). The other could be argued to violate, say, the right to privacy. Heck, for those radicals who think a rape victim is always asking for it, it could be argued to violate rights such as freedom of religion or freedom of expression. But, like there is nothing that says you have the right to live without getting murdered, there is actually no right that says you have the right to live without getting raped.
These rights exist because they have the legal sanctions (and enforcement) that you specified were necessary for rights to exist.

I have a right not to be murdered. If you violate my right not to be murdered, legal/governmental mechanisms and/or institutions are going to target you for punishment for the crime of violating my right not to be murdered.

And what are "these things" and what do "these things" have?
They reference your words. Precisely the paragraph that sentence was applied to in the post.

Originally Posted by SMadsen View Post
In fact, only one of those acts happens to also violate a right directly, namely murder that happens to violate the right to live (unless such a right has been repealed by the granter of rights, i.e. the state, in which case murdering you is still murder but not a violation of your right). The other could be argued to violate, say, the right to privacy. Heck, for those radicals who think a rape victim is always asking for it, it could be argued to violate rights such as freedom of religion or freedom of expression. But, like there is nothing that says you have the right to live without getting murdered, there is actually no right that says you have the right to live without getting raped.
These examples you give all exist as laws with legal sanctions and enforcement mechanisms in place.

[The Drunk Guy]

By the same logic, there is also a right for turds not to be left in the streets of NYC. Now, there's an idea for creating a free habitat ;)
I thought the Hudson was a Turd Reserve.