From: Richard Ridge (richard_ridge@tao-group.com)
Date: Wed Feb 20 2002 - 09:09:46 MST
> Not before we recognize the animal rights.
I would hope that we would never do that.
As far as I'm concerned the concept of 'rights' is inapplicable in the case
of animals. Rights and liberties form part of a social contract, which
determines exactly what powers the individual has recourse to in relation to
the state and other citizens (i.e. a reciprocal arrangement). Since animals
cannot participate in this social contract, the idea of conferring rights
seems inherently meaningless - particularly as the idea that rights can be
conferred rather than demanded seems meaningless in itself (particularly as
once conferred, only one side can honour them - a hungry lion is under no
obligation to respect human life). For instance, if we are to examine the
European interpretation of rights, the fundamental question would be one of
the right to life. In order to honour that for animals, one would have to
make vegetarianism compulsory, thereby infringing human rights and freedoms.
To take an even more extreme example, curtailing medical research with
animals can only serve to impede or obstruct the production of medicines,
which thereby derogates any obligation to protect human life. I also fail to
see how any right to liberty can be meaningfully applied - a battery farm or
a field are equally constrained and neither amount to being at liberty.
What we can talk of is animal obligations (not to inflict unnecessary
suffering etc), but to suggest that rights are an applicable concept only
serves to degrade the entire concept of rights to a point where they have
become dangerously farcical. In relation to the original point, the article
was suggesting that at some point artificial life will effectively be able
to participate within the social contract (thinking of Asimov's laws of
robotics, to take a concrete example) and would therefore arguably require
some form of rights in order to be able to function within that contract.
Given that that does not and cannot pertain to animals, the argument for
artificial rights seems to be a perfectly reasonable one.
Notes interesting discussion on this topic at
http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/aniright.html] I particularly relished the
observation that there is no such organisation as Porpoises for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:43 MDT