Animal Rights (Chile)

[JDBowden]

Hola hi hello

Here in Chile, they are drafting a new constitution. Within it, contains various hot-topic clauses.

For example: Animals now have the same rights as humans in terms of "Human Rights."

"Human Rights" is hotly-debated as to the definition, and now even more so with the loosely defined, "Animal Rights." No one really seems to know what any of this even remotely means, it just looks good and sounds good on paper. But to what it is / how to enforce, I am still waiting for that answer...

So, I suppose a question to start would be: Should animals have equal to or more rights than humans?

jdb

[Pattern-chaser]

Should animals have equal to or more rights than humans?

I think that all living things deserve respect. That doesn't mean that we would or should stop eating other living things: we will die if we don't. I think the real answer to the question you ask is that we should never harm or kill any living thing needlessly, or worse: thoughtlessly.

[JDBowden]

Where would hunting fall under I wonder?

If we cannot kill any living thing, that would include animals and plants both. So, what are we to eat?

[Pattern-chaser]

Where would hunting fall under I wonder?

If we cannot kill any living thing, that would include animals and plants both. So, what are we to eat?

As I said, perhaps to avoid the very question you pose ():

That doesn't mean that we would or should stop eating other living things: we will die if we don't.

[LuckyR]

Evaluating political events without taking the political implications is an exercise in naïveté.

[value]

Hola hi hello

Here in Chile, they are drafting a new constitution. Within it, contains various hot-topic clauses.

For example: Animals now have the same rights as humans in terms of "Human Rights."

"Human Rights" is hotly-debated as to the definition, and now even more so with the loosely defined, "Animal Rights." No one really seems to know what any of this even remotely means, it just looks good and sounds good on paper. But to what it is / how to enforce, I am still waiting for that answer...

So, I suppose a question to start would be: Should animals have equal to or more rights than humans?

jdb

Interesting topic!

It seems to be related to the global Rights For Nature movement.

Rights of nature or Earth rights is a legal and jurisprudential theory that describes inherent rights as associated with ecosystems and species, similar to the concept of fundamental human rights. The rights of nature concept challenges twentieth-century laws as generally grounded in a flawed frame of nature as "resource" to be owned, used, and degraded. Proponents argue that laws grounded in rights of nature direct humanity to act appropriately and in a way consistent with modern, system-based science, which demonstrates that humans and the natural world are fundamentally interconnected.

This school of thought is underpinned by two basic lines of reasoning. First, since the recognition of human rights is based in part on the philosophical belief that those rights emanate from humanity's own existence, logically, so too do inherent rights of the natural world arise from the natural world's own existence. A second and more pragmatic argument asserts that the survival of humans depends on healthy ecosystems, and so protection of nature's rights in turn, advances human rights and well-being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature

https://www.rightsfornature.org/

Gaia philosophy might be relevant as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_philosophy

(2022) The Global Legal Movement to Treat Nature as a Person
Nature Is Becoming a Person. How to make sense of the new global trend that grants legal rights to animals, plants, and rivers.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/24/na ... sophy-law/

Some video's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuFNmH7lVTA (documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nItsO4vKb2Q (TED talk)

--

Evaluating political events without taking the political implications is an exercise in naïveté.

The ability to legally defend Nature opens doors for protection. There are quite a lot of people that are driven by 'the beauty of Nature'. There are even people that risk their lives to protect Nature.

Bertrand Russell once complained about the loss of Nature's beauty due to industrialisation in an interview early in 1959.

A philosophical theory called Ecofeminism addresses two subjects in the same time as if they are correlated: the suppression of women and the destruction of Nature. Both may involve a neglect of the importance of beauty ('good', morality, long term wisdom etc).

Ecofeminism

bentley-ecofeminism-180.jpg (20.62 KiB) Viewed 1585 times

(2022) Is Ecofeminism the Answer?
A philosophy conceptualized in the 1970s, ecofeminism maintains that patriarchal power structures rely on both the oppression of women and destruction of the natural world. Professor Susan Dobscha contends that collaborative, compassionate messaging is key to fostering sustainable behavior
https://www.bentley.edu/news/ecofeminis ... ate-crisis

The Growing Importance of Ecofeminism
https://voicesforbiodiversity.org/artic ... cofeminism

Ecofeminism is being pushed by the Government in India as a solution to create harmony between people (this is my first impression from the news). The founder of the Ecofeminism movement in India is a famous female philosopher Dr. Vandana Shiva (navdanya.org/eco-feminism)

Is Ecofeminism Due for a Comeback?
It’s out of fashion in the United States. But activists from India to Ecuador show how feminist environmentalism could be used to build solidarity in the face of Earth's crisis.
https://newrepublic.com/article/165926/ ... ate-crisis

--

In my opinion it is a very good initiative and the philosophical basis - which in my opinion is certainly possible - appears to be missing (unexplored) for a large part.

Why should Nature be protected? This question should be examined with in mind the understanding that the question demands and answer outside the scope of utilitarian arguments (i.e. usefulness from a human perspective). One will need a strong motivation to push philosophical exploration beyond the scope of 'usefulness' (e.g. making money) and that may be more difficult than expected.

A key for progress might be the thorough addressing of GMO which in my opinion can be seen as 'rape of Nature' (corruption of Nature).

When the GMO practice can be critically overcome using philosophical reasoning, it will become possible to protect Nature in a more profound and successful way for the longer term (i.e. with the correct understanding of why Nature actually matters and why Nature has a dignity beyond the short term utilitarian human perspective).

A recent article indicates that morality for Nature isn't even in its infancy and that it's simply not funded and for the large part unexplored in academic philosophy. The highest that people seem to be able to argue is that 'morality might be important' and 'nature might have a dignity beyond the human' but the rest would be up for emotions and there is no further philosophical ground/reasoning.

A topic on the subject:

GMO debate and the 'anti-science' narrative
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=17935&p=416786#p416786

Telling is how the GMO industry attempts to challenge criticism originating from moral concerns or the idea that Nature has Dignity. They intend to 'combat' movements such as "Rights for Nature" as if it concerns a 'war on science'.

The Antiscience Movement Is Escalating, Going Global and Killing Thousands
Antiscience has emerged as a dominant and highly lethal force, and one that threatens global security, as much as do terrorism and nuclear proliferation. We must mount a counteroffensive and build new infrastructure to combat antiscience, just as we have for these other more widely recognized and established threats.

Antiscience is now a large and formidable security threat.
viewtopic.php?p=418241#p418241

(2018) “Anti-science zealotry”? Values, Epistemic Risk, and the GMO Debate
The “anti-science” or “war on science” narrative has become popular among science journalists. While there is no question that some opponents of GMOs are biased or ignorant of the relevant facts, the blanket tendency to characterize critics as anti-science or engaged in a war on science is both misguided and dangerous.
Source: https://philpapers.org/rec/BIDAZVPhilPapers | Philosopher Justin B. Biddle (Georgia Institute of Technology)

War on science? Nature to have a Dignity beyond the human?

Sound philosophical theory and reasoning can prevent the war that is pushed by the destroyers of Nature or 'the GMO industry'. The GMO industry originates from the Pharmaceutical Industry and the evidence is strong that it is driven by money. It would be a good start case to defend Nature that will result in profound philosophical advancements in the area of morality (which can be motivated in a robust sense on behalf of securing longer term prosperity of the human).

Rights for Nature - the treating of Nature and animals as a person that can be legally defended - provides a legal basis to achieve results when it comes down to challenging GMO. What's missing however is the actual philosophical reasoning to achieve success because most people are limited to utilitarian arguments.

nature and morality: 78 papers since centuries of philosophical exploration.
https://www.academia.edu/search?q=morality%20nature

The GMO industry wins easily when it concerns utilitarian arguments. For example, the people that destroy GMO crops are blamed for 'killing thousands of children' due to the utilitarian value that those crops would provide to those children. To win the GMO debate, it will concern the addressing of morality for Nature and academic philosophy of 2022 didn't even get started on that topic.

[Sculptor1]

Hola hi hello

Here in Chile, they are drafting a new constitution. Within it, contains various hot-topic clauses.

For example: Animals now have the same rights as humans in terms of "Human Rights."

"Human Rights" is hotly-debated as to the definition, and now even more so with the loosely defined, "Animal Rights." No one really seems to know what any of this even remotely means, it just looks good and sounds good on paper. But to what it is / how to enforce, I am still waiting for that answer...

So, I suppose a question to start would be: Should animals have equal to or more rights than humans?

jdb

I think animals should have as much right to any idea that they can express in words.
Aside from that they have to rely on any rights human feel that they think they deserve.
I would suggest that animals can get the same rights as they would bestow on their own prey.
Aside from that they have to rely on any rights human feel that they think they deserve.
Personally I think that if an animals has been given a personal name for a human that cares for it, then that animal should receive all the rights that that human would want it to have, but that human ought not expect material benefits from the populace to have those right.
Aside from that they have to rely on any rights human feel that they think they deserve.
My other thoughts on the matter is that rights should be given to preserve species and habitats against the avarice and growing needs of the over populated human world.
Aside from that they have to rely on any rights human feel that they think they deserve.

[Pattern-chaser]

I would suggest that animals can get the same rights as they would bestow on their own prey.

Is this intended to apply to humans, or only to animals-other-than-humans?

We imprison our prey, force it to reproduce (make more prisoners), feed it food that will optimise its flavour when eaten, and then, after a life of slavery and captivity, we slaughter them. Where appropriate, we mutilate them — remove horns, tusks, etc — to facilitate their being kept in ever-more-overcrowded conditions. No mercy. Is this what all animals deserve? Is this what humans deserve?

[Sculptor1]

I would suggest that animals can get the same rights as they would bestow on their own prey.

Is this intended to apply to humans, or only to animals-other-than-humans?

We imprison our prey, force it to reproduce (make more prisoners), feed it food that will optimise its flavour when eaten, and then, after a life of slavery and captivity, we slaughter them. Where appropriate, we mutilate them — remove horns, tusks, etc — to facilitate their being kept in ever-more-overcrowded conditions. No mercy. Is this what all animals deserve? Is this what humans deserve?

You are catching on!

[Pattern-chaser]

I would suggest that animals can get the same rights as they would bestow on their own prey.

Is this intended to apply to humans, or only to animals-other-than-humans?

We imprison our prey, force it to reproduce (make more prisoners), feed it food that will optimise its flavour when eaten, and then, after a life of slavery and captivity, we slaughter them. Where appropriate, we mutilate them — remove horns, tusks, etc — to facilitate their being kept in ever-more-overcrowded conditions. No mercy. Is this what all animals deserve? Is this what humans deserve?

You are catching on!

No, I've always felt that way. Just say (write) what you mean. Then you will be more easily understood.

[Gertie]

Hola hi hello

Here in Chile, they are drafting a new constitution. Within it, contains various hot-topic clauses.

For example: Animals now have the same rights as humans in terms of "Human Rights."

"Human Rights" is hotly-debated as to the definition, and now even more so with the loosely defined, "Animal Rights." No one really seems to know what any of this even remotely means, it just looks good and sounds good on paper. But to what it is / how to enforce, I am still waiting for that answer...

So, I suppose a question to start would be: Should animals have equal to or more rights than humans?

jdb

Rights have to be specified to be meaningful.

And as an aspect of moral consideration/obligation/entitlement, the rights should be relevant to the moral foundation underlying them.

I believe that conscious creatures should have rights which allow for a basic level of well-being, because that's my moral foundation - promoting the wellbeing of conscious creatures. But because wellbeing means different things for different species the rights should be appropriate, rather than identical. (eg it's daft to give dogs the right to vote).

[Gertie]

Should animals have equal to or more rights than humans?

I think that all living things deserve respect. That doesn't mean that we would or should stop eating other living things: we will die if we don't. I think the real answer to the question you ask is that we should never harm or kill any living thing needlessly, or worse: thoughtlessly.

The question is about animal rights - vegans survive without eating animals.

[Pattern-chaser]

Should animals have equal to or more rights than humans?

I think that all living things deserve respect. That doesn't mean that we would or should stop eating other living things: we will die if we don't. I think the real answer to the question you ask is that we should never harm or kill any living thing needlessly, or worse: thoughtlessly.

The question is about animal rights - vegans survive without eating animals.

Yes, the topic addresses animal rights specifically, while I actually took the trouble to write "living things", not "animals". I see no essential difference between eating animals (living things) or plants, fungi, etc (living things). I'm not even sure that 'rights' is an appropriate addition to the way in which we treat living things.

[JDBowden]

If we cannot pin down rights for humans, what makes us think that we should push rights for other topics right now? ie animals/plants/earth/whatever.
It is like we are skipping ourselves and going directly to more difficult themes. Kind of like we just gave up with humans.

[GE Morton]

Yes, the topic addresses animal rights specifically, while I actually took the trouble to write "living things", not "animals". I see no essential difference between eating animals (living things) or plants, fungi, etc (living things). I'm not even sure that 'rights' is an appropriate addition to the way in which we treat living things.

This sort of question only arises because the concept of "rights" has been perverted by 20th century leftists, as illustrated by the following Wikipedia article cited by "value" above:

"This school of thought is underpinned by two basic lines of reasoning. First, since the recognition of human rights is based in part on the philosophical belief that those rights emanate from humanity's own existence, logically, so too do inherent rights of the natural world arise from the natural world's own existence."

Well, no. Rights do not "emanate from humanity's own existence." They don't "emanate" from anything; that is a vacuous, meaningless claim. A "right" is a term denoting a factual state of affairs, e.g., that Alfie was the first possessor of something to which he is claiming a right, and that state of affairs has moral import --- his being the first possessor of X means that he acquired X without inflicting any loss or injury on any other moral agent. Hence his possession of X satisfies the moral "do no harm" principle; he acquired X righteously.

Per this definition animals do have certain rights --- like humans, they are the first possessors of their lives, their bodies, whatever food or other material goods they may have righteously acquired, etc. So now another question arises: whose rights are moral agents bound to respect?

That is the real question involving animal rights.