Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
On what basis? I've exhaustively explained why I don't think that they have rights, but so far all I've seen on the other side is bare assertions. Why don't you explain your theory of why animals have rights, instead of just asserting that they do?
Please point to where I've said "this is fact" anywhere at all in this discussion. All I've done is show my premises, explain my reasoning, and detail my conclusions, and the only place where I've said you were factually wrong is where you incorrectly claimed that humans don't necessarily need to kill animals to live, which point you didn't address at all other than to make some entirely tangential observation about philosophers.
As far as Roger Scruton goes, I've never heard of him but I will have a look and see what he has to say and perhaps some criticisms of his logic as well.
Where did I say people couldn't disagree with me? Oh yah, nowhere. I have no problem with disagreement, but valid opinions are based on solid premises and logical conclusions, not self-contradictions. As I said, why don't you explain why animals should have rights and what theory of rights this is based upon, so that I can evaluate whether or not you have a well-supported position or are just piling ad-hoc arguments on top of each other?
|
Actually I have shown you where I think they have rights. You define the ability to have rights as impossible because they have no sense of duty. Which is a theory of thought not a fact. I believe that any being with cognitive abilities should be afforded rights as they are aware they are alive and suffer. You don't explain why rights are defined by duty you just say they are. There is no flawed logic in that. There is you just disagreeing with it based on your philosophy. I have not contradicted myself at all so I don't know where that came from. You have in fact contradicted yourself unless you believe that eating meat is necessary for survival, because you claim that we must prevent undue harm to animals. Killing them unecessarily is undue harm. Another contradiction that I didn't harp on is that you say infants have diminished rights. Why don't those diminished rights get applied to animals? A one day old baby is at least afforded the right to life, correct? Why can't that be applied to a 2 yr old dog with an almost equal understanding?