Animals, in their primary consciousness, are simply other living things inhabiting earth. They do not have any sort of notion(s) regarding rights, in the human sense of that concept. True, they have altruistic motives for protecting their own members and, more importantly, their offspring...it is not clear how much of this they are conscious of and how much is reactionary. Survival is a genetic imperative, even though the 'selfish' gene, as proposed by Dawkins, is not at all selfish in the way we recognize selfishness. Now, whether or not animals have rights INHERENTLY, as living beings, depends on how we want to look at it. There are those among us who espouse causes And, causes are as plentiful as the minds which conjure them. After all, animals have no advocates other than their human admirers. And, as such, humans feel the need to defend children of a lesser God. And so, we get to the crux of the matter---well, several of them: 1. We recognize the importance of animal life to that of our own. We would be bereft of many benefits, possibly of the privilege of life itself, were it not for animal life generally. We don't think too much about plants, other than whether they are edible. Or poisonous. But animals are useful in many ways. 2. We have kinship with primary consciousness which is unattainable with non-sentient chlorophyll factories. Our sense of husbandry is as old as humanity itself. 3. We tend to think more of those life forms whose behaviors may mimic our own, and we feel good about how much compassion and empathy we exhibit towards them. So, for many of us, animals, their protection and sustainability are a cause, and we begin to talk about rights, as further justification for treating them like fellow citizens of the planet. Thinking, perhaps, that given time they will supersede our dominance by superseding our species. Pragmatism takes on a new meaning. And, after all, evolution is an ongoing process...
There are no animal rights, per se. Only those we say they can (or ought to) have.

Well it's really just a theist aproach to justify original predation. In their sick little labyrinth of psychosis they believe in the original predation in the garden of Eden. Their justification is really just that animals are food and they themselves aren't animals. Nope, they're God's faithful servants on a mission to save some blah blah blah for God! But w/e. Gotta eat something... Why they can't like the idea of growing fish from a tree, I have no idea. Phobia of apples? "Not wise enough, blah blah blah, doom blah blah, the end of the world has to be managed blah blah."

The whole classification of animals thing is really just an extension of the British equivocation fallacy to turn family into a competition so as to justify nepotism and slippery slope for aristocracy. You know it as racism.

Past and future get a little fuzzy. They got all this blather to explain their past not knowing it's verses to set a future and or deny that future as it suits their nepotism.

You can set it to happen faster but those delusional bastards will just troll it out longer till they can come up with a way to cash in on it before you can.

The racists think they're going to get seats in the federal fallout shelters because they paid in on building them. They dunno they're just mutts. The new imicrowave seats six.

Theism and science aren't supposed to mix. One of the two ends up on the dinner table. It ain't science.

Why so few consider on their own how arrogant and counter productive it is to codify, a riddle that will never be solved.

The problem with making a list of animal rights is that it always has to be kept at a lower standard than Human Rights. Is this because we have to value humans higher than animals or is it so we don't have to run into the problem of having to revise Human Rights to fit animal rights? All animals with a penis/vagina reproductive dynamic reproduce in a rapey manner. You can't tell a lioness not to harass a male lion until he's ready to rape her. It's what she's made to do. It's what he's made to do. It's what we're all made to do. Believe it or don't. Truth exists independently of you and your beliefs.

It may be a good time to mention "human rights" is just a misnomer for "inhuman rights".

This was a good show. John Perry is an immensely important man in my life and our world. I've said that before but it can never be said enough. In my one interaction with him, he smoothed over my ignorance to lightly dismiss my existence. I was humiliated. But I was not dehumanized. This site, which I follow now and again (mostly around the Holidays when work takes back seat to family) I've seen posts that would question all of humanity. Though classifying this age as the Anthropocene is unfortunate it pales in comparison either to damning humanity for non humans' sake or to extending rights to any non human creature.

We all come from common stock. Not all of us deserve rights greater than others.

If you will... look at this current viral - safe for work - you tube (note, buyer beware, it has one image of sodomy that I would address in the spirit it is offered.)

https://youtu.be/3PUIJpsbHSk - phone link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PUlJpsbHSk - desktop link

This (assuming you hit the link) is a philosophical and scientific abomination. But therein is the key to the non-human rights debate.

Non human is simply that... non human. As soon as we figure out what that means we might actually make some headway on this issue. Some very great scientists are doing just that.

Word...Frans de Waal is not one of these very great scientists, great scientist though he is. Damasio is another scientist that I look askance at but neither Damasio nor de Waal are my scientific equals. They are my superiors. Science >> Philosophy ... every time. A philosopher wouldn't have it any other way.

As philosophers we concern ourselves with the space between the Theory. Theory is the foundation of Science. Philosophy used to find space in the realm of consciousness. That is no longer true. There are very good theories of consciousness that are being tested every day. Instead philosophers are being relegated to the untestable ethical questions like non human rights, which are strongly dependent on the new science of consciousness, but not directed by it.

Non human thought and consciousness is nothing like the thought expressed in the link I shared. Much of that link concerned itself with non human feelings and emotion. These feelings, we will never know them. The only way to know how someone is feeling is to ask them. Even then it's pulling teeth. That is why people are encouraged, so often, to use "I" language in relationships and testimonials. Non humans don't share language (with rare exceptions - one if which I would share, because it was so fundamental to my worldview, but this is already too long.) We can't ask dogs or cats how they are feeling. Scientists are suggesting quantitative models of animal consciousness. Even plants and fungi can be conscious under some of these models.

Pet lovers and primatologists are quick to anthropomorphize their pets/subjects. Everyone is. It is intuitive to see faces in random dots or rock formations. It is especially easy when primate biology is so close to that of human. This is dangerous when it comes to thought, feeling and consciousness. Non human is not necessarily like human. Convergent behavior is clear in the working of very different avian and human brains. Not all consciousness is driven by cortical engagement. Just as emotion is not all subcortical and shared in evolutionary branchings.

Sure, it's easy, it's even funny. If you didn't already... hit those links now. But remember, no matter how human like a capuchin monkey may seem, they are likely very different than humans with respect to ideas of fairness, justice and world view.

Alright. I blathered for too long. I'm sorry. Non human rights... how does this blathering help us to resolve this question? I don't know. None of us do. If we did it would be science that helped us get there. Science is doing that wrt consciousness. Early signs point toward a much wider scope than the Anthropocene human centered age has led us to this point. We need to expand our concepts of master and slave, competition and cooperation and any notion of human minds as central to the construction of the universe. Wheat and now corn are perhaps best thought our new masters. Machines are already out competeing our file clerks and soon to do so for our truck drivers. The human mind itself is certainly not the best model of thought. In times of massive despeciation like the one we are living in now it would be best to cast these rights as far and wide as possible. We don't know what will ultimately win the day. Not extending these rights all the way out to plants seems as foolhardy as the Dodo giving up the option of flight.

Note I responded to the blog post as well... with a slightly different take.

Happy New Merry Hallow Thankmas to you all.

Pfft

What could it possibly be besides the most shamelessly arrogant warplan that these roman catholic sleaze would support illegal immigration on one continent while fighting against it on their own home continent?

Im disgusted that it had to be so obvious before you'd even hear my question.

What will it look like when you decide? A lot more like it does right now. A happy smiley roman catholic pederast preist stabbing your children in the back with heroin soaked needles in your classrooms of non-thought 101.

When you finish building the border wall. Put computer ai guided laser turrets on top of it.

No topic should ever be denied public discussion on the basis that the subject matter is so disgusting that it can avoid being accurately discussed in public; least of all of these, roman catholics fan clubs.(especialy them since they're habitually in the habit of that sht throughout history(not that you'd even know it(supporting citation.)))

Side note, the origin of my point that the problem of recognising animal rights means youd have to revaluate human rights, came from a roman catholic misandrist heroin pusher on the catholic backed west highschool school board in madison wisconsin by the original last name Capone.(who was also very racist and pushing an athletic program involving raising children on growth hormones (early 1980s.) She's in the cia now last time i checked (mid 1990s(clinton administration)). Can we say "fked" here? Because thats what we are if you dont wise the fk up.)

RepoMan05
(Devout sole member of the American Anti-partisan Party.)