Vegetarian Discussion: "need" Does Not Create A Right

"need" Does Not Create A Right
Posts: 6

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-08 13:11:52 EST
"Need" especially does not create any "right" to violate the rights of
others. You may feel you "need" money to pay the rent and buy food, but
that does not give you the moral or legal right to commit robbery - a
violation of both property and human rights - in order to obtain the money.

The lion does not have an ethical "right" to violate a "right" of the
gazelle because of the lion's supposed "need" for food. Rights aren't
at issue - the lion simply eats gazelles.

Fanatical "ar" believers simply cannot explain why a gazelle has a
"right" not to be killed by humans, but has no such "right" with respect
to lions and other non-human predators. Nonsense about lions not being
moral agents has been discredited: we observe that human rights
relative to other humans do *NOT*, in any way, depend on whether the
other humans are moral patients or moral agents.

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-08 14:17:35 EST
This should be obvious to anyone who is capable of thinking ethically.

Rupert
2008-10-08 20:44:19 EST
On Oct 9, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> "Need" especially does not create any "right" to violate the rights of
> others.  You may feel you "need" money to pay the rent and buy food, but
> that does not give you the moral or legal right to commit robbery - a
> violation of both property and human rights - in order to obtain the money.
>
> The lion does not have an ethical "right" to violate a "right" of the
> gazelle because of the lion's supposed "need" for food.  Rights aren't
> at issue - the lion simply eats gazelles.
>
> Fanatical "ar" believers simply cannot explain why a gazelle has a
> "right" not to be killed by humans, but has no such "right" with respect
> to lions and other non-human predators.  Nonsense about lions not being
> moral agents has been discredited:  we observe that human rights
> relative to other humans do *NOT*, in any way, depend on whether the
> other humans are moral patients or moral agents.

I have a right against you that you don't kill me and eat me, and if
you do then you are morally accountable and blameworthy and others can
justifiably punish you. I don't have a right against a moral patient,
such as a lion, that he or she doesn't kill and eat me. I am morally
justified in defending myself, taking steps to prevent the thing from
happening, by lethal force if necessary. But if the lion kills me and
eats me, he or she is not morally accountable, not blameworthy, and
we're not morally justified in punishing the lion.

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-09 02:57:49 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 9, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>> "Need" especially does not create any "right" to violate the rights of
>> others. You may feel you "need" money to pay the rent and buy food, but
>> that does not give you the moral or legal right to commit robbery - a
>> violation of both property and human rights - in order to obtain the money.
>>
>> The lion does not have an ethical "right" to violate a "right" of the
>> gazelle because of the lion's supposed "need" for food. Rights aren't
>> at issue - the lion simply eats gazelles.
>>
>> Fanatical "ar" believers simply cannot explain why a gazelle has a
>> "right" not to be killed by humans, but has no such "right" with respect
>> to lions and other non-human predators. Nonsense about lions not being
>> moral agents has been discredited: we observe that human rights
>> relative to other humans do *NOT*, in any way, depend on whether the
>> other humans are moral patients or moral agents.
>
> I have a right against you that you don't kill me and eat me,

No, just the kill part. You have no right not to be eaten once you're
dead, you fuckwit. Once you're dead, you have no rights at all.


> you do then you are morally accountable and blameworthy and others can
> justifiably punish you. I don't have a right against a moral patient,
> such as a lion, that he or she doesn't kill and eat me.

You *do* have rights against *all* humans, whether moral patients or
moral agents.

Animals do not fail to hold rights against other animals because those
animals are moral patients; they fail to hold rights against them
because they just don't have rights, period.

Rupert
2008-10-09 03:35:17 EST
On Oct 9, 2:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> "Need" especially does not create any "right" to violate the rights of
> >> others.  You may feel you "need" money to pay the rent and buy food, but
> >> that does not give you the moral or legal right to commit robbery - a
> >> violation of both property and human rights - in order to obtain the money.
>
> >> The lion does not have an ethical "right" to violate a "right" of the
> >> gazelle because of the lion's supposed "need" for food.  Rights aren't
> >> at issue - the lion simply eats gazelles.
>
> >> Fanatical "ar" believers simply cannot explain why a gazelle has a
> >> "right" not to be killed by humans, but has no such "right" with respect
> >> to lions and other non-human predators.  Nonsense about lions not being
> >> moral agents has been discredited:  we observe that human rights
> >> relative to other humans do *NOT*, in any way, depend on whether the
> >> other humans are moral patients or moral agents.
>
> > I have a right against you that you don't kill me and eat me,
>
> No, just the kill part.  You have no right not to be eaten once you're
> dead, you fuckwit.  Once you're dead, you have no rights at all.
>

You are an incredibly pointless stupid clown. I do have the right to
request while I am alive that I not be eaten when I am dead, and it is
then morally obligatory to honour that request, barring extraordinary
circumstances such as that someone is dying of starvation and needs to
eat me. In any event this is quite clearly logically independent of
what I said. I said that you do not have the right to kill me and eat
me, which is uncontroversially correct.

> > you do then you are morally accountable and blameworthy and others can
> > justifiably punish you. I don't have a right against a moral patient,
> > such as a lion, that he or she doesn't kill and eat me.
>
> You *do* have rights against *all* humans, whether moral patients or
> moral agents.
>

Nope. Against the moral patients I just have the right to defend
myself.

> Animals do not fail to hold rights against other animals because those
> animals are moral patients; they fail to hold rights against them
> because they just don't have rights, period.

Ipse dixit and pointless babbling.

Rudy Canoza
2008-10-09 10:20:27 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2:57 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 1:11 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>>> "Need" especially does not create any "right" to violate the rights of
>>>> others. You may feel you "need" money to pay the rent and buy food, but
>>>> that does not give you the moral or legal right to commit robbery - a
>>>> violation of both property and human rights - in order to obtain the money.
>>>> The lion does not have an ethical "right" to violate a "right" of the
>>>> gazelle because of the lion's supposed "need" for food. Rights aren't
>>>> at issue - the lion simply eats gazelles.
>>>> Fanatical "ar" believers simply cannot explain why a gazelle has a
>>>> "right" not to be killed by humans, but has no such "right" with respect
>>>> to lions and other non-human predators. Nonsense about lions not being
>>>> moral agents has been discredited: we observe that human rights
>>>> relative to other humans do *NOT*, in any way, depend on whether the
>>>> other humans are moral patients or moral agents.
>>> I have a right against you that you don't kill me and eat me,
>> No, just the kill part. You have no right not to be eaten once you're
>> dead, you fuckwit. Once you're dead, you have no rights at all.
>>
>
> You are an incredibly pointless stupid clown. I do have the right to
> request while I am alive that I not be eaten when I am dead, and it is
> then morally obligatory to honour that request,

I'm not sure about that conclusion. What I am sure about is that if
your request is not honored, no violation of any right has occurred.


>>> you do then you are morally accountable and blameworthy and others can
>>> justifiably punish you. I don't have a right against a moral patient,
>>> such as a lion, that he or she doesn't kill and eat me.
>> You *do* have rights against *all* humans, whether moral patients or
>> moral agents.
>>
>
> Nope.

Yep. Rights, if they exist at all, are held against humans generally.
There is no mention of moral agency in any declaration of rights.


>> Animals do not fail to hold rights against other animals because those
>> animals are moral patients; they fail to hold rights against them
>> because they just don't have rights, period.
>
> Ipse dixit

No.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron