14b Do animals have rights?

The research for this lecture was the most horrible ever. If you look at the http://www.peta.org site (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) you find there samples of ultimate cruelty to animals. Horrible to see.

When a butterfly or even a wasp gets trapped agains the windowpane in my kitchen I take a glass and piece of paper, catch the insect and release it outside. What sense does it make to kill it and dump it in the trashcan?

On the other hand I eat meat, so I must conclude that I am a hypocrite and leave the killing of animals to others? This is a very confusing thought. What position do I take? Where to begin to figure that out?

Let's begin with the concept of right? What is a right, how does it work, when is a right valid to apply? Wesley Hohfeld (1879-1918), an American legal theorist, formulated the four basic components of rights

1. A has a PRIVILEGE to X if and only if A has no duty not to X.

This mean, when you are a newbie in your first 30 days and see some Lindens at a moneytree, you have a right to pick the money. You will not be violating any duty not to pick the money should you decide to do so.

2. A has a CLAIM that B X if and only if B has a duty to A to X.

A premium account holder has a claim, that Linden Lab pays his stipendium, which means that LL has a duty to the account holder.

3. A has a POWER if and only if A has the ability within a set of rules to alter her own or another's rights.

Ordering, promising, sentencing, waiving, buying, selling, and abandoning are all acts by which a rightholder exercises a power to change his own normative situation or that of another.

4 B has an IMMUNITY if and only if A lacks the ability within a set of rules to alter B's rights.

When you see someone here in class who you don't like you can't do anything about it. That person has the right to be here, or said otherwise that person has in that respect an immunity.

So, privilege, claim, power and immunity are the basic ingredients of rights, you could say. But how does this relate to animal rights?

Let me think, ….my cat has many privileges. It can but has no obligation to catch a bird, eat its food, sleep whenever it likes.

Can my cat have a claim? This is interesting. My cat has a claim that
X (which could mean, …feed it, treat it well, etc.) if and only if I have a duty to my cat to X.

Yes, that must be the quintessence here. Do I have a duty, a moral obligation, to my cat? Does my cat have a claim here? maybe we could even widen our horizon and ask the question: do we have a duty to nature in general?

Since the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859 we have gotten a completely different view on the place of man in nature. No longer the dominator of Nature as Genesis learnt, nor the complete opposite of nature because we had a ratio as Aristotle thought.

After the development of our individualism we all have become a part of of nature again, one of the elements is a complex ecosystem. Is that a way to understand my duty to my cat?

Let me end with a quote I took from an article on human rights. I will only exchange the word 'human' by 'animal' and this been done, it makes perfect sense to me.

Rorty (1993) has argued that animal rights are based not upon the exercise of reason, but a sentimental vision of humanity. He insists that animal rights are not rationally defensible.

He argues that one cannot justify the basis of animal rights by appeal to moral theory and the canons of reason since, he insists, moral beliefs and practices are not ultimately motivated by an appeal to reason or moral theory, but emanate from a sympathetic identification with others: morality originates in the heart, and not in the head.

Interestingly, though unambiguously sceptical about the philosophical basis of animal rights, Rorty views the existence of animal rights as a ‘good and desirable thing’, something whose existence we all benefit from.

His critique of human rights is thus not motivated by an underlying hostility to the doctrine. For Rorty, animal rights are better served by emotional appeals to identify with the unnecessary suffering of others, than by arguments over the correct determination of reason.

I think that this makes sense for man and animal. Thank you.:-)


The Discussion

[13:29] Myriam Brianna: mew
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Prof
[13:29] herman Bergson: Hi Myriam
[13:29] Myriam Brianna: talk for the day over, I think?
[13:29] Myriam Brianna: ah, thanx
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: I think Rorty is tactically correct
[13:30] Simulat Almendros: Interesting Herman - I agree with Rorty that morality or rights aren't based on reason, but that doesn't mean for me that they are just sentimental
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: but that his distinction between heart and head is artificial
[13:31] oola Neruda: agreed
[13:31] herman Bergson: No I agree
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: I liked Rousseau's assesment of animal rights
[13:31] Simulat Almendros: That they are instead based on the sort of attitudes that we need to live together as we do
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: it was one i could really agree with
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: if something does not make sense, it cannot be sustained
[13:32] herman Bergson: Rousseau, Gemma...tell us what was his idea?
[13:32] Frederick Hansome: "morality originates in the heart, and not in the head." This statement makes no sense. The heart pumps blood, and has no thinkning capaciity. When we make that kind of statement, we are still referring to a different part of the brain
[13:32] herman Bergson: no no.....you misunderstand....
[13:33] herman Bergson: you should think and recall the lectures on epistemology..
[13:33] Frederick Hansome: one of us does, not sure which
[13:33] oola Neruda: someone mentioned ecology... at one time, the chinese felt birds were eating all their crops so they had a national day of killing all birds
[13:33] Frederick Hansome: yes?
[13:33] herman Bergson: the reference to a heart is jsut a metaphore of course for the fact that some statements cant have a rational justification
[13:33] oola Neruda: then the next year... insects ate all the crops
[13:33] Tess Aristocrat: I wonder what would happen if we all became vegetarians? (animal populations-wise)
[13:34] oola Neruda: evolution... we have canine teeth and teeth for eatting meat
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: :-))
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: people would have more to eat, Tess
[13:34] Frederick Hansome: that is my point, there IS rational justification for choices that seem to be emotionalyy determihned
[13:34] Simulat Almendros: hmm - the animals we eat exist in huge numbers purely because we eat them
[13:34] herman Bergson: There is no logical sequitur that we should become vegetarians....
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: humans are herbivores...
[13:35] Simulat Almendros: omnivores :-)
[13:35] herman Bergson: That is not true Repose
[13:35] Myriam Brianna: but that doesn't mean it is 'right', or that we 'ought' to eat flesh, when we look at our super-predator-teeth ;D
[13:35] Tess Aristocrat: I like chicken...*confesses
[13:35] Simulat Almendros: should we give to animals a right that they don't give to us?
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: doesn't seem to be the consensus of opinion among biologists I checked last night...
[13:36] herman Bergson: I think we must keep things clear...
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: how can they give us rights (animals ) that are not cognitive
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: i eat meat and will probably continue to do so
[13:36] herman Bergson: on the one hand the historical facts...humans always were hunters and became later farmers too
[13:37] herman Bergson: but as farmers they also had domesticated animals
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:37] Simulat Almendros: I guess the point is Gemma that animals have no problem eating other animals - and usually the ones that carnivores eat are herbivores
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: predation yes
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: i see that Spain has made apes equal to man
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: or is about to
[13:38] oola Neruda: i think that rights being given or recieved is very much associated with who has the power
[13:38] Simulat Almendros: but apart from the issue of eating animals I think there is a separate issue of cruelty - and I say we shouldn't be cruel to animals, but its because I wouldn't trust some one who was
[13:39] Justine Rhapsody: There is also the question of medical research on animals.
[13:39] herman Bergson: Let me give you an argumentation by Peter SInger himself...
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: oh i dislike him
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:39] herman Bergson: especially about the cruelty issue regarding killing animals
[13:40] herman Bergson: Whether we are required to refrain from painlessly killing animals will depend on whether animals have an interest in continuing to exist in the future.
[13:40] herman Bergson: In order to have this interest, Singer believes that a being must be able to conceive of itself as existing into the future, and this requires a being to be self-conscious.
[13:40] oola Neruda: or if even we will exist in the future... don't mess up ecology
[13:40] herman Bergson: Non-self-conscious beings are not harmed by their deaths, according to Singer, for they do not have an interest in continuing to exist into the future.
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: animals and humans are equal
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: in his eyes
[13:41] herman Bergson: Not in this case Gemma
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: well in his mind i think they are
[13:41] herman Bergson: but equal in what sense?
[13:41] Myriam Brianna: no, they are not. He sees an ape, that is conscious of his suffering, equal to a human when it comes to a moral evaluation of its pain
[13:41] Simulat Almendros: That argument may be why spain is considering making apes equal in rights to people
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:42] Myriam Brianna: but that does not make apes and humans the same
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:42] herman Bergson: then they have to pay taxes too, I would say!
[13:42] Myriam Brianna: (even though we are apes)
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: not any more Myriam
[13:42] herman Bergson: and that is not a joke....!!!
[13:42] oola Neruda: i got really spooked by the large wild monkeys in africa... they were very disturbing in their almost humanness
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: among other things Herman
[13:43] herman Bergson: Because it refers to a human feature called private property..
[13:43] Myriam Brianna: what else then? I am an animal, I am an ape, I am a human. Like a bird is an animal and a bird
[13:43] herman Bergson: And you have private property Myriam....no ape has that
[13:43] Myriam Brianna: true
[13:43] herman Bergson: You derive rights from possessing things
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: also true
[13:44] herman Bergson: so there IS a demarcation between animals and humans in that respect
[13:44] Tess Aristocrat: excuses herself..thank you for the discussion :)
[13:44] Myriam Brianna: I also have the ability to projiect pretty far into the future - most animals, including apes, don't
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: bye, Tess
[13:44] Myriam Brianna: bye
[13:44] oola Neruda: we tend to think we are more important than whomever we choose to think that of... like what was done to the native americans... and slaves
[13:44] herman Bergson: indeed...and that was the reference to Singer about..
[13:45] herman Bergson: That is another chapter oola
[13:45] oola Neruda: but we just assume we are better than the animals
[13:46] herman Bergson: So maybe we have a few clear ideas that makes us different (not superior) form animals
[13:46] oola Neruda: power
[13:46] Myriam Brianna: no, we assume that we have cognitive abilities they don't posses. That we are the ones who are able to choose about our behaviour towards them and each other
[13:46] herman Bergson: an concept of a future and the ability to have private property
[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes Myriam…we could add that too....our ability to NOT follow our primary needs
[13:48] Frederick Hansome: We have a quality that animals no not, by definition, which justifies our higher standing. That quality is human dignity.
[13:48] herman Bergson: for instance...when we run out of water in the dessert....we share our last drop with our fellow man
[13:48] Myriam Brianna: the thing I'd call markedly human. It may be natural to eat your neighbors brain in the climax of a conflict (chimpanzees do, and humans did it, too - ritualized), but we choose not to ^^
[13:48] herman Bergson: I would not call it a higher standing Frederick
[13:49] Frederick Hansome: the separator, the distinguisher, then?
[13:49] herman Bergson: we are all part of the same ecological system....unless you want to claim that the human beings are an exception in nature....:-)
[13:50] herman Bergson: maybe we are...
[13:50] herman Bergson: the mistake of evolution perhaps :-)
[13:50] Frederick Hansome: not a position that I would take
[13:50] Free Radar HUD v1.1 by Crystal Gadgets
[13:51] Frederick Hansome: we certainly are a part of the ecological system, but that is just what it is, a system. With many parts and levels
[13:51] herman Bergson: Ok..if we are part of evolution we are in the same pool as the rest of nature..
[13:51] herman Bergson: Yes Frederick
[13:51] Frederick Hansome: but that pool is not homogenous
[13:52] herman Bergson: ok...it even makes us more responsible if we are the knowing part of the system
[13:52] Frederick Hansome: agreed
[13:52] oola Neruda: yes
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...
[13:52] herman Bergson: chimps can be terribly cruel to each other, but that is their instinct..
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: something like humans you mean
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: humans*
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:53] herman Bergson: we can be terribly cruel to animals, and we KWOW we are causing suffering
[13:53] herman Bergson: that is the difference
[13:53] Frederick Hansome: this gives a hint as to our obligation to other (lesser) animals, and all living entities
[13:54] oola Neruda: yes
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: so our duty to animals is greater than their duty to us...
[13:54] Frederick Hansome: exactly
[13:54] Simulat Almendros: I return to my point about not trusting people who are cruel to animals - if I saw somebody who took pleasure in pulling the wings off flies I'd be not inclined to trust them much or like them much
[13:54] herman Bergson: Very true Simulat...!
[13:54] Simulat Almendros: not that I think flies have any rights
[13:55] Violette McMinnar: all animals have a right to live
[13:55] herman Bergson: No...but it is the attitude toward living creatures
[13:55] Myriam Brianna: the obligation to them is really an obligation to us. We've seen to what it can lead when we un-thinkingly disturb an ecological-system: Human suffering. A reason not to do it :x
[13:55] oola Neruda: yes
[13:55] Simulat Almendros: Thats true too Myriam
[13:55] Frederick Hansome: flies have a perfect right to fly anywhere but around me
[13:55] herman Bergson: That is an utilitarian point of view Myriam
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: but it is also an obligation to them...
[13:56] Myriam Brianna: yes
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: animals and nature have a moral claim on us...
[13:56] Simulat Almendros: why authoritarian Herman?
[13:56] Myriam Brianna: and an "egoistical" one. But I think egoism gets us pretty far when it comes to being nice together ;D
[13:56] herman Bergson: Well..what can be our conclusion in this case?
[13:57] herman Bergson: What I mean is...where ever on this world...a human being is able to see when an animal is suffering....
[13:57] Frederick Hansome: We have a right to consume animals, but to prepare them for that in as humanely way as possible
[13:58] herman Bergson: and in a lot of occasions people shut their eyes for that and go on abusing the animals
[13:58] herman Bergson: Yes Frederick..I wont become a vegetarian..
[13:59] herman Bergson: But I think we have to see the specifics of our culture..
[13:59] Repose Lionheart: can a basic right of animals be stated?
[13:59] Frederick Hansome: good question
[13:59] herman Bergson: if we just lived in a small prehistoric village we would have been animal killers, hunters...
[13:59] Repose Lionheart: true
[14:00] herman Bergson: Now in our society we are no hunters anymore but producers of life stock, cows, chickens etc.
[14:00] herman Bergson: and we still kill these animals
[14:00] Simulat Almendros: I must go - Thanks Herman and all
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: simulat
[14:01] herman Bergson: Be well Simulat
[14:01] oola Neruda: baiee
[14:01] Justine Rhapsody: I need to go also, thank you professor.
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: ah wow
[14:01] oola Neruda: baiee Justine
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: saturday begins burning life
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: i hope you all go
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: the theme is evolution
[14:01] herman Bergson: Well..I guess we all have got enough ideas to think about before our next dinner ^_^
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: "sentient creature have a basic right to live out their lives according to their own natures and purposes"
[14:02] herman Bergson: So...class dismissed for today
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!!
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: Thanks, Professor
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: I think i will make it thursday
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: new topic??
[14:03] Frederick Hansome: Good nitht. Thank you herman
[14:03] Violette McMinnar: thank you all, good night
[14:03] oola Neruda: good night
[14:03] herman Bergson: Bye all :-)
[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[14:03] Myriam Brianna: bye all

14a Is it allowed to eat other creatures?

Do we have the right to eat other creatures? A question that has all kinds of effects on our thoughts and feelings. Maybe we are even not too eager to talk about this subject after a dinner with a superb steak.

However, the issue of animals and ethics is a philosophical issue mainly due to the fact that common sense thinking is deeply divided on it. Animals exist on the borderline of our moral concepts.

When we hear that there is dogmeat on the menu we are upset and when we hear that cows are kept in doors for all their life, never see a meadow, we say "They are just animals and those stables are very comfortable".

This disparity of thought gives rise to a philosophical question: what place should animals have in an acceptable moral system?

On this line of thought, if one kind of being regularly eats another kind of being, then the first is said to be higher on the food chain.


If one being is higher than another on the food chain, then it is natural for that being to use the other in the furtherance of its interests. Since this sort of behavior is natural, it does not require any further moral justification.

This would conclude our discussion. We just refer to the 'laws' of nature. Kant saw the fact that we can make a moral choice of yes or no to follow our desires, while an animal only can follow its instincts, as the clear borderline.

So animals have no specific value in a moral sense. That doesnt mean that we can treat animals as we like. Also in Kant's days people abhored cruelty to animals.

But this was not because of the animal and a possile right on decent treatment, but because thew cruelty and seeing such cruelty had a negative on people. It would deteriorate feelings of compassion etc.

Descartes discared of animals with the argument that animals are automata and had no consciousness. So animals are not a subject in a moral discourse.

Also contemporary philosophers follow this line of thinking. For instance Carruthers (1992) notes that the difference between conscious and non-conscious experiences is that conscious experiences are available to higher-order thoughts while non-conscious experiences are not.

(A higher-order thought is a thought that can take as its object another thought.) He thus concludes that in order to have conscious experiences one must be able to have higher-order thoughts.

However, we have no reason to believe that animals have higher-order thoughts, and thus no reason to believe that they are conscious.

What makes questions like our present one so interesting is, that at first glance you think...oh, cant be too difficult to answer that one.

But after some research and reading a few texts you all of a sudden are almost caught by a tsunami of intricate questions and new insights.

For instance, when we say consciousness is the demarcation between man and animal, which means that an animal has no moral status, then we have to answer the next question:

what about a person in coma, or a severely mentally handicaped person, or a newborn baby? They all have no "hihger-order" thoughts.

Or take this. Both Kant and Carruthers agree that my torturing my own cat for fun would be wrong. However, they believe it is wrong not because of the harm to the cat,

but rather because of the effect this act will have on me. Many people have found this to be a very unsatisfying account of the duty.

It is unsatisfactory because when one knows clearly the difference between humans and animals, where animals are the lower creatures, why should torturing or killing animals brutalize him and make him more likely to harm or kill persons?

Animals are just 'objects' we manipulate and it makes no sense to invest them with human like qualities. I hear people talk to their dog for instance. You dont believe it understands what you are telling, do you?

This is just the beginning of a philosophically and ethically very difficult discourse. And to add something more: do animals have RIGHTS?

We are the first ones to stand up and say : it is MY RIGHT to ......bla bla...... Have you ever thought about the question, how I can claim rights? Where do they come from? Are they simple conventions, or derived from laws of nature, or intrinsic in the meaning of life?

I thought....oh I read the chapter in The Philosophy Gym of Stephen Law and I write a nice lecture on it. However, the chapter deals with the issue a little too superficial and I wanted more info.

And in no time I got lost in the many ramifications of our question of today. So I would advise you for next Tuesday. Do some reading on subjects as rights, animal rights, animals and ethics and Peter Singer. You will be astonished about what you will find.


The Discussion

[13:24] herman Bergson: Peter Singer is the writer of the book Animal Liberation, the 'bible' of people who go on the barricads for animal rights
[13:25] herman Bergson: So still a lot to do ...but we'll save that for next Tuesday:-)
[13:25] herman Bergson: If you have any questins or remarks...?
[13:25] Frederick Hansome: I believe that the premise that animals have no consciousness is faulty in the extreme
[13:25] herman Bergson: Your dog maybe?
[13:25] Abraxas Nagy: AH HAHAHAHA
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes, Frederick , I am not happy with that point of view too
[13:26] oola Neruda: there was a time... greece/rome... early america... all through history... when people have taken slaves or considered other people as inferiors... and use the same kind of arguments
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: well it is hard to accept that since we share the planet with rightful owners which are animals that they have no rights
[13:26] Frederick Hansome: and if they do have a certain level of consciousness, they have "rights"
[13:26] oola Neruda: they are not bright or whatever
[13:26] herman Bergson: Animals have a clear experience of pain and pleasure
[13:26] Myriam Brianna: it depends on what animal we are speaking about and what we mean by consciousness, of course
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: true oola
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: I think I saw recently on PhysOrg.com that dolphin had been shown to have higher order thoughts...
[[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes oola good point
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: days ago...the research report would still be there
[13:28] Frederick Hansome: could we spend a semester or two on "consiousness, what is it?"
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: lol yes
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: good idea
[13:28] herman Bergson: Absolutely
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: interesting
[13:28] Myriam Brianna: a lot of birds (ravens and raven-like), primates, monkeys and sea mammals show self-recognition, when presented with a mirror. Also the ability to show behaviour that speaks of thinking in advance how another creature will react to their doings
[13:29] herman Bergson: With brainscans we can see that certain areas in the animal brain are activated by its experiences of pleasure or pain...just like it is with humans
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: some birds use tools
[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: some monkeys are trained to use computers
[13:29] Myriam Brianna: sophisticated, in some cases. Like bending a wire to fish for a treat in a bottle
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: no one trained the animals to use tools
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: Koko
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: they learned by themselves
[13:30] Abraxas Nagy: but how can u learn if your not conscious
[13:30] herman Bergson: Chimps can behave "immoral" by murdering or mutulating a fellow chimp out of jealousy
[13:30] oola Neruda: yes repose... koko
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: that is what i am saying
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: Do the chimps feel guilt, do you think?
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: I know they do
[13:31] herman Bergson: So what is clear here is that the old fashioned consciousness/no consciousness is not a tenable stand anymore
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: uummnn know=think
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: probably no more than a serial killer
[13:31] herman Bergson: We dont know Repose
[13:31] Myriam Brianna: yes, that line is very blurred
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: Sounds like moral behaviour to me...
[13:32] herman Bergson: The argument in support of the claim that animals have direct moral status is rather simple. It goes as follows:

1. If a being is sentient then it has direct moral status.
2. (Most) animals are sentient
3. Therefore (most) animals have direct moral status.
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: oh...well, maybe not...
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
[13:32] herman Bergson: Sentience” refers to the capacity to experience episodes of positively or negatively valenced awareness.
[13:33] Myriam Brianna: but the "most" reads wrong. Descartes was wrong to say that every animal is a mere automaton, but it still holds true for insects and the like, I'd say
[13:34] herman Bergson: Another argumentation is that animals cant have rights... because rights entail duties
[13:34] herman Bergson: When you have the right to live it is my duty to preserve and protect your life
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: ever watched an army of ants socially looking for a new home??
[13:34] Abraxas Nagy: is it?
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: Maybe their duty is to be what they are
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: ah yes repose
[13:35] Frederick Hansome: I am of the opinion that Descartes was wrong in everything he said or did (except his mathmatics)
[13:35] Myriam Brianna: sure. But what 'appears' to speak of sentience must not be identical with sentience
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: contributing to the chain of life
[13:35] herman Bergson: there are ants that sacrifice their lifes to close the entrances of the nest from the outside. They freeze to death.
[13:35] Myriam Brianna: yep
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: ah yes
[13:36] herman Bergson: You could say that indeed Frederick :-)
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: every simple little thing we talk about here becomes so complex!
[13:36] Myriam Brianna: everything good and fine, but take a very sophisticated chat-bot to test, speak "with" it and for a while you may think that there's another sentient being
[13:36] Myriam Brianna: that it appears so doesn't make the bot sentient
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: the hard thing is simplicity, i've heard...
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: layers of complexity are everywhere
[13:36] herman Bergson: true, but it doesnt make it a living being either
[13:37] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma....
[13:37] Myriam Brianna: exactly
[13:37] herman Bergson: But I think it is more the case that what seems obvious and simple isnt such at second thought :-)
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:38] herman Bergson: I myself thought that this would be a 'simple' issue...
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:38] herman Bergson: What a mistake that was.....^_^
[13:38] herman Bergson: Just take the concept of 'Right".....you have rights....
[13:38] herman Bergson: what does that mean?
[13:39] herman Bergson: and another thing..property...
[13:39] herman Bergson: my car is my property....but my dog...is it property too?
[13:39] Frederick Hansome: what is complex about the issue once it is accepted that animals have a level of concciousness? and therefore some rights?
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: that changes so quickly according to the times
[13:39] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:39] herman Bergson: I can smash my car....no one will object to that....
[13:40] herman Bergson: my property...
[13:40] herman Bergson: so can I smash my dog too?
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: !!!
[13:40] herman Bergson: without people objecting?
[13:40] herman Bergson: And if my dog is not my property what is it then....sort of property?
[13:40] Myriam Brianna: nope, you (luckily) cannot
[13:40] Frederick Hansome: that would be a grevious violation of your dog's rights
[13:41] oola Neruda: i believe that many people (especially mothers) feel that those weaker than ourselves should be taken care of... and perhaps responsibility for
[13:41] herman Bergson: That is the point....my car has no rights of being....I can crush it whenever I like
[13:41] oola Neruda: be it elderly, babies, handicapped or ... animals
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes oola.....those categories have rights, but cant perform any duty...
[13:42] oola Neruda: but animals fit that description too'
[13:42] herman Bergson: so there is not an absolute relation between right and duty
[13:42] herman Bergson: as Kant thought for instance
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: So...dogs are dependents?
[13:42] Frederick Hansome: the duty of certain animals may be to provide noruishment for those higher on the food chain
[13:43] herman Bergson: dependents?
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: any pet you keep is dependent
[13:43] oola Neruda: one shut up in a cage or tied with a rope...yes
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:43] herman Bergson: No frederick.....
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: wild animals now ... they have rights also i think
[13:43] herman Bergson: Performing a duty is a moral choice...I also can neglect my duties
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: but isnt a house a sort of cage to?
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: eys
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:43] Frederick Hansome: Why no, herman?
[13:44] herman Bergson: an animal in the foodchange just has its place there...that is all
[13:44] Myriam Brianna: I cringe when a descriptive term like "food-chain" is brought in contact with a moral one
[13:44] herman Bergson: it is not its choice or decision
[13:44] oola Neruda: when you have power over someone...or thing.. they are dependant on you
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: or when they are weak and small and need your help, maybe
[13:45] herman Bergson: But most of the animal world is completely independent of us.....
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:46] herman Bergson: so the dependent / independent quality does not lead to animal rights
[13:46] oola Neruda: independent...yet dependent..that we leave habitat and do not poach
[13:46] Frederick Hansome: if theyare only a marker on the food chain (sorry for the term, Miriam), what rights do they have?
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: :-0
[13:46] herman Bergson: I think that our next step is to analyse the issue of animal rights
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:47] Myriam Brianna: who says they are only a marker on the chain?
[13:47] herman Bergson: First we have to know what a right is, how it is justified
[13:47] herman Bergson: next we have to see if it applies to animals too
[13:48] herman Bergson: We all seem to have an intuition that animals have rights too
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: we are sometimes eaten by tigers
[13:48] Myriam Brianna: (btw, we are of course also dependent to most of the animal world. And food is really a small issue there. Reason enough not to crash into ecosystems we do not understand at all)
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: perhaps we are part of the food chain too
[13:48] Myriam Brianna: we are super-predators, yes
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: accidently i hope
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: if so, our rights exist independently of the food chain
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: part of teh food chain that is
[13:49] herman Bergson: I dont think that the food chain has anything to do with the issue of rights
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: i agree
[13:49] Myriam Brianna: err, yes. Food chain is a descriptive term, not a moral one
[13:50] herman Bergson: exactly
[13:50] oola Neruda: Myriam is right about the ecological implications
[13:50] herman Bergson: Actually the classic step Frederick took
[13:50] Myriam Brianna: and there's no relation between the natural-ness or un-naturalness of something and ethic problems, imho
[13:50] Frederick Hansome: which was?
[13:50] herman Bergson: To deduce from a descriptive term (foodchain) a moral concept - duty
[13:51] Myriam Brianna: the naturalistic fallacy
[13:51] herman Bergson: yes..a classic one
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: oh...makes sense...
[13:51] herman Bergson: You can not deduce an OUGHT from an IS :-)
[13:51] Myriam Brianna: very wide spread. The Vatican loves it
[13:51] herman Bergson: Oh yes...
[13:52] herman Bergson: Well I think that we have made the issue clear --- or complex to quote Gemma
[13:52] herman Bergson: at least for a start
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: !!!
[13:52] herman Bergson: It IS a complex issue
[13:53] herman Bergson: So I suggest we'll discuss Animal Rights next Tuesday :-)
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: I'll be here!
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: me to
[13:54] herman Bergson: Ok...that is one :-)
[13:54] Frederick Hansome: Will be very interesting
[13:54] Myriam Brianna: third
[13:54] herman Bergson: Unless you have something to add to the discussion I think we can end the debate for today
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: very much to do for homework
[13:55] herman Bergson: Yes Frederick....I think so too....
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: Thanks you, Professor
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: yes thank you
[13:55] herman Bergson: Good articles in Wiki and IEP
[13:56] Myriam Brianna: and when it comes to Singer ... *searches her hard-drives*
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!!
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: see you tuesday I hope
[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes...Singer is one of the popular spokesmen
[13:57] Frederick Hansome: good night all
[13:57] herman Bergson: Thank you for your participation :-)
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: good night professor and thank you
[13:57] Myriam Brianna: http://www.gkpn.de has a lot of stuff on the debate that raged around him and his views. Some of it in English, iirc
[13:58] herman Bergson: ok Myriam...thnx