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 →

[–]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).

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Okay, so then if a population of Neanderthals was discovered alive today should it be legally permissible to “farm” and eat them as they’re not “human”?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The word “human” is literally in the definition of “Neanderthal” So, no lol

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

For some taxonomic systems not others, but honestly this just moves the problem down the line (not surprising as species are a social construct). What about Homo habilis? Or Australopithecus? What group does “human rights” not cover?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

“What group does “human rights” not cover?”

Non humans. Literally that’s my whole point. Human rights don’t cover animals, or species that aren’t/weren’t human. If we are talking about extinct types of humans who will never exist again but that you’re mentioning solely for the sake of argument, they are still considered a type of human if they were considered humans when they existed. That’s why you’re using them as an example, as opposed to apes or gorillas or dinosaurs.

No matter what example you come up with, animals are still not human and still not covered under human rights. I’m not sure why you keep offering extinct types of humans, they don’t exist anymore and when they did, they likely killed and ate animals themselves.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That’s why you’re using them as an example, as opposed to apes or gorillas or dinosaurs.

It's not ok to eat a gorilla, though, is it?