GC & QT: Where should we draw the line between human rights and entitlement?

submitted by Penultimate_Penance from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (15 children)

That's why the government should never be in the business of forcing one group's ideology

There is an argument that all values and morals are subjective, so all laws are inherently about enforcing one groups ideology over all society. For instance I think humans eating animals and generally treating them as expendable is, the single most horrific thing that humans have ever done and that all such things should be banned with harsh consequences for people who eat/harm animals in cases where their immediate survival isn’t on the line. Many people would probably disagree with me and Would defend humanity’s “right” to eat and do with animals as we please regardless of the unnecessary suffering it inflicts on beings whom are literally kin to us (if you believe in evolution). Some people vehemently feel though that they have the right to do this and that to legislate otherwise is the very definition of tyranny. How would you go about settling this difference in views?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I think the distinction is that while kin, animals aren’t humans, so human rights don’t apply to them. Which is why people have the freedom to eat animal products or not.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

Okay, but unless there is further logic there that explains why non-human animals don’t deserve the same rights as humans (say the same rights as human babies to avoid silly questions like “should dogs be able to vote?”) the statement that humans deserve human rights because there humans seems like a tautology.

I guess the question is then why should we specifically favor humans with rights that prevent them from being eaten or skinned or whatever, when animals can suffer just as much? Intelligence doesn’t work because not all humans are more intelligent then all other animals. What other than power justifies humans inflicting needless suffering on other beings?

Also this is ignoring the fact that species is a social construct, but let’s not open up that can of worms here as it’s not truly relevant to the issues.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I mean... animals can and have eaten humans lol

Humans can advocate for themselves and communicate across languages and different cultures. So even if we factor in the amount of humans who aren’t smarter than animals, humans in general still have more sophisticated methods of communication and more sophisticated society than animals. Animals can’t really do what humans can do as far as creating rights for themselves. That’s why it’s always been up to humans to fight to protect them. Humans have a right to advocate for animals if they wish, because there’s no way for animals to do it for themselves. But if it’s “human rights” there’s not really any reason that animals should be covered under those rights, simply because they aren’t human.

I agree the way animals are treated by some humans is atrocious, but it doesn’t violate human rights to treat animals that way.

Im not saying I don’t agree that animals should be treated better, I’m just explaining why it doesn’t violate the concept of human rights in any way.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

I mean sure on a tautological level human rights are for humans because they’re humans, but I’m asking for a logical reason for animals to be treated the way they are under the law. Societal or communication sophistication doesn’t really make sense logically, as we have used the same reasoning as justification for oppressing/wiping out other cultures that were deemed “less sophisticated” but we now rightfully view such behavior as egregious and horrific. And I doubt even the people who held/hold such a view would still hold it if the situation were reversed. So other than the fact that human rights by definition are concerning humans, what logically justifies such behavior when applied to non-human animals?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

My point is they don’t have to justify it, horrific as it may be, because animals aren’t human and thus aren’t covered by human rights. That’s all I’m saying- we are discussing human rights specifically. So animals don’t apply. Even if humans are upset by how animals are treated, it doesn’t disrupt their own rights for animals to be abused.

I agree that animals are treated badly by humans, and I agree they should be treated better. I’m only explaining why humans can “get away” with mistreating them. It’s literally simply because they aren’t humans, and aren’t covered by human rights.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

No I understand your point, but my question wasn’t exactly concerning why animals don’t have human rights, just about how rights are constructed in general. If you’d like me to rephrase it from a human centric viewpoint, “What about the right of humans to live in a society that doesn’t cause needless suffering to their non-human kin?”. Is that not a right?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It’s not a right because the non human kin don’t have any rights. You have the right to create your own personal environment that doesn’t cause suffering to non human kin, but not to demand it of all of humanity

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Why though? We demand sociopaths to obey laws that have a moral basis even though the may not personally experience the existence of morals. Is it just majority rules?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It’s because sociopaths have to obey the law to protect other humans. It’s not “majority rules” it’s “humans in general rule” over your (the sociopath, not you lol) desire to harm them. A sociopath would be able to get away with torturing and killing an animal, as long as it’s not someone’s pet (to be fair there’s a few other exceptions, but generally speaking humans can do all manner of fucked up things to animals and it’s legal, though frowned upon. I agree that’s fucked up, but Im pointing out that they can get away with it, because it’s an animal, not a human).