Today in class we encountered questions that we will deal with throughout this course, especially when we enter debates about euthanasia and abortion, namely to whom do "rights" extend? Should rights be based on the capacity to suffer (to experience pain, as Emi noted today) and thus more inclusive of other species or should rights be extended only to entities that have the capacity to reason or to choose (as Aldo pointed out)? If rights should be granted to the former, then how should that affect how we live our lives on a day-to-day basis? In composing your response, please craft an answer with 7-10 thoughtful and well-written sentences. Thank you
I believe that rights should be given to those with intellect. Every human being has an intellect while most animals do not. So I believe that every human being should have rights and even at a minimum natural rights. Every person should have the access to clean water, food, and the necessities in life but that is much easier said then done. I think if we included animals and gave them the right to live, there would be no more carnivores and the food cycle would completely mess up. I agree completely with Aldo because everyone can suffer and sooner or later everyone does suffer, but only those with intellect can soon to learn to get over it. I think we as a species should CHOOSE to give rights to everyone in the world and not only just the people that are well off.
ReplyDeleteI think that non-natural rights should extend to all creatures that can voice their opinions, and natural rights should be available for all life (so a human, a dog, a parrot, etc. should all be allowed shelter, water, food, air, etc.) So, since a guinea pig can't say "Hey, I'd really like to vote in the next election", they would not have the right to vote. However, this doesn't mean that we should starve the guinea pig, because that would go against our responsibilities as beings with rights. Along with rights should come an obligation to help others who don't have rights, and not to stomp all over them. This is also where the question of a baby's rights as mention in class come in to play. Since a baby cannot voice it's opinion, it is our responsibility to care for it until it can.
ReplyDeleteI believe that rights should be given to human-beings, since we can voice our opinions, or in the case of a child a parent or guardian can voice their child's opinion. As we talked about in class today I do think that creatures that can suffer should not be put through pain, but they can't have rights without being able to voice them. This why we have laws protecting animals, since they can't speak for themselves. This subject gets into tricky area with the whole abortion debate, which I personally have trouble choosing one certain side, which makes the question of who should be given rights a bit hard for me to answer. Everyone has the right to live, which makes it hard to decide on such things as whether abortion should be allowed or not. For the most part I would say that rights should only extend to human-beings, because we can protect the other living creatures under our rights. Rights is a tough subject, but humans are the only ones who can take such a complex idea in a serious way.
ReplyDeleteAny being with the capacity to suffer is born with SOME rights. No one (or "nothing," more inclusively) should have to experience any kind of AVOIDABLE pain (not necessarily just physical) if he, she, or it hasn't done anything to warrant punishment. I use the word "avoidable" to exclude inevitable and accidental struggles, such as hunger, puberty, or hitting your head on that bottom of that thing reeeeally reeeeally hard even though you were just telling yourself to be careful. These pains aren't punishment, but rather conditions of the full experience of being alive... I digress. I draw this position from my stance on an issue about which I know we will talk at length: abortion. For years, I have held that abortion should be legal for about the first four months of the pregnancy-- before the fetus can feel pain. I wouldn't agree that rights do or only should extend to those with the capacity to reason or choose. Babies, animals, and mentally handicapped are all entitled to certain inalienable rights (certainly to life), even though they may not be able to engage in any processes recognizable to us as reason or choice.
ReplyDelete"We" as a class shouldn't have to live our lives any differently on a day-to-day basis (unless one of us is secretly a turtle-kicking assassin or something... *cough* Emi) to preserve the rights of beings to whom rights extend. Nor should "we" as a species have to alter our behavior for the most part; despite a few wars and unsavory genocides, "we" have THRIVED and conquered this planet and nearly all of the life on it even after our competitors enjoyed a head start of more than half a billion years. This kind of dialogue is only possible because of our luxurious position in the global food chain.... Again, I digress. I mean only to say that (whether because of religion or a natural feeling of altruism) humans generally tend to look out for each other and put the needs of the many above the wants of the few.
HOWEVER, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I do believe that "we," as in "we the people," as in "we the people of the United States of America" MUST change our day-to-day behavior IMMEDIATELY if we have any hint of respect for the rights to which sentient lifeforms, humans in particular, are inalienably entitled. No government should let its own innocent citizens die so that the innocent citizens of another nation can die, even if the process by which the parties are killed is extremely profitable. No government should make ANY law that pertains to how a person behaves provided he or she isn't infringing upon anyone/anything else's rights, especially if some of such laws require a combined tax of about $1500 PER SECOND from their victims; these laws can even prevent the free practice of religion (hint: think "peyote"). More broadly, the American government doesn't recognize the rights of pain-sensitive farm animals not to be mutilated (branded, castrated, debeaked, etc.), BUT-- by virtue of "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"-- a corporation with the money, influence, and thinking power of hundreds if not THOUSANDS of people (who are not just sentient, but almost exclusively college educated) has all the rights of a human being. I could go on.
I personally believe that rights should be awarded to sentient creatures that are or can be capable of reasoning. When I make this statement, I am not talking about individuals but groups. In other words, I personally believe that every human being, regardless of their physical or mental state, are born with particular rights. People say that we as humans have the right to live but I think that we have the right to fight for a life. What I mean with this I believe it is hard to allow life since most aspects are out of our reach, but we can certainly have the right to fight for our life and what it means to us. I understand the many say that we are entitle to 'rights' like water, food, shelter, etc... but reality is that this basic 'rights' are not awarded to many, even in the US, and sometimes this rights are taken away. However, we have the right to fight for a better life and that is something no one but yourself can take away.
ReplyDeleteI believe that natural-rights should extend to all beings while rights such as voting and the right to bare arms should be allowed for humans beings only. A dog shouldn't exactly have the right to bare arms, nor would need that specific right but, animals should be granted basic rights. The right to shelter, the right not to be beaten and so on. As humans we should have to go around everyday with a sense that, if for some bewildering reason, you wanted to kill a dog, you can't because the dog has the right to live and should be treated with respect.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, any creature that can suffer has the right to be protected. That is, if it can feel pain, then we, as a people, shouldn’t intentionally cause it discomfort. But, when necessary (such as using the creature as a food source) then the creature should be injured or killed in a way that will provoke as little pain as possible. The biggest concern I can see here is that once I kill a spider I might be sent to jail. But in an ideal world, even animals have rights. Why is it okay to kill a mother deer’s child for sport but not your own infant son? I know that’s pretty harsh, but I’m not sure why we feel so much species superiority. As far as additional rights, I think the right to vote should go to the mentally sane, the right to religious freedom should go to everyone (to an extent), and all the other rights should be given based on qualifications that pertain to the given right.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an extremely difficult question to answer, and not necessarily one we have the capacity to answer. I mean, sure, we can say who, or what, should have rights, and what rights they should have, but I don't know that there's any way to be sure that we're correct. I think it's quite a bit easier with humans, or it should be. Every human being should be given natural rights and and all given... given rights, some of which may have an age limit on them, but human beings are still entitled to those rights when the time comes. But that's what I believe. And I also think that other creatures with the ability to experience pain or suffer should also have protection, but Anna made a very good point about whether or not that means spiders should be protected. I don't think there's any of us that have never squished a spider or cockroach or mosquito or an ant. And I feel like we have the urge to protect animals that we look at as innocent, where as bugs or even a rat are considered vermin and should be gotten rid of, usually when they come into our houses, but I know I've killed bugs outside before. And if we protect humans from being killed by other humans, should we protect animals from being killed by other animals? Should we protect animals from being killed by us? Wouldn't that cause them pain? I think there's a lot of things that we can't answer. But I do believe, as I stated before, that all human beings are entitled natural rights and given rights (possibly later in life if there's an age or whatnot) and that no living being should be caused any unnecessary pain, if it can be helped. But it's extremely hard to do that.
ReplyDeleteThe abstract concept of "rights" to begin with is as vague and unclear as to who or what gets them. Certain necessities should not be rights, they should be an assumption or a given, such as water and food. By assigning these vital life recourses the title of "rights," we as humans have introduced the idea that they can be taken away. Thus clean water in our industrialized society has become a right and a privilege. In many developing countries wells have been bought up by large corporations such as Coca Cola, turning a basic recourse into a commodity.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, I do not think there is a clear way to judge where rights end or begin. By stating that certain creatures have fewer or no rights compared to human beings, the idea of rights have turned into a justification for abuse. How can pain be measured from a foreign body? Thought? Sentience? There is no clear or concrete way to answer this question. If as some said that one must be able to voice their opinion, or reason, etc, then presumably babies and comatose individuals have no rights at all. Really though, as much as I agree with the idea of rights and natural rights, in a society where they truly exist the idea should be redundant as they should not be introduced for discussion or debate.
Rights are a bit of a cloudy issue for me. I do believe that numerous 'things' have the ability to live. Even though I think this, I will not touch on abortion issues. That is a pool of thought too deep for this specific post. That is for later. When I say things, i mainly mean animals. The right to live is one of the most basic rights that someone could possess. I don't see many other animals getting a lot of use out of many rights that extend far beyond that. This further bounces off of what someone said during class, that because they can feel pain, this entitles them to the right to "not be in pain".
ReplyDeleteRights should also be directly correlated to 'Insert oppressed being here' 's ability to be self aware. the ability for higher thinking that has nothing to do with just thinking about survival. That's why Humans want rights, they want to be treated fairly. I would go the extra mile and say oh yeah. The right to live goes out to everything (like I said abortion is another issue, and seeing as I'm not a woman, i don't feel qualified to take a position on it) But rights other than that, like equal treatmeant should not be awarded. I mean come on, that's weird.
I really thought about this for a long time and I cannot figure out a way to choose either of those options that avoids the two extremes we discussed in class. If I choose the first, than there is an argument that values animals' rights on a similar degree to humans,and if I choose the second option, that is the side of people who value the life of a dolphin a newborn baby--which is crazy.
ReplyDeleteSo, in hopes of sidestepping, those thoughts (even though this might be considered cheating), I my opinion is this: humans have rights. I think that the idea of rights foremost assumes equality, and a measure of free will. Even with the people who study dolphins and say that they are more intelligent than babies, did the dolphins give their permission to be studied? Should humans respect an animal's home by not cutting down a tree? Should I not kill the mouse I find in my basement? The right to free will, the right to property, the right to life--these are all rights that no one would argue animals have. In my opinion, if they do not have these rights, how can we pick and choose which ones to give them? In fact, by being the dictators of animals' rights aren't we essentially saying they have none to begin with?
Well, my first question to your question is do you mean MAN MADE rights? Or God-given rights? We had ideas and definitions for both in class today, so I have may different answers for both. Initially, there are natural rights for living beings, human or animal and how they interact with each other. Although, does that mean there are non-living entities that deserve these God-given rights? The right to exist? I believe even though they can not physically mentally reason, their existence is imperative for beings that can reason. For example, water. All beings use water in some way, shape, or form. Does one have the entitlement to harm a source in anyway because they feel like it? I don't think so (the right for the water to exist) because it infringes on the well-being of others (human or animal), and so it doesn't necessarily have the right to exist, but it does have the right to not be harmed needlessly.
ReplyDeleteTo go back to the initial question about who deserves these rights, I think that any being with the capacity to suffer deserves God given rights. If you can suffer, you can reason. Suffering is not exclusive to physical pain. It is subjective to the entity and in order to suffer, you have to have some form of knowledge or awareness of what is occurring. Man-made rights should not just go to beings that are obviously suffering. People mention babies, those with mental disabilities, etc. Both groups can suffer, whether able-minded people realize that or not.
To address man-made rights, such as voting or the right to bear arms, I believe they should be accessible to able-minded people. With these rights comes the responsibility and duty to care for those who are not able-minded beings. To recognize the God-given rights others deserve and act upon them.
I think this is such a difficult concept. It's frustratingly complex to try to categorize those who deserve/are allowed rights versus those who don't deserve/ aren't allowed rights. Who gets to choose? What contexts are we basing these ideas off of? The idea of allotting specific people, beings, etc some sort of representation of entitlements can seem unfathomable, and it's hard to differentiate what constitutes as rights versus what some people (usually, more privileged people) assume to be available to all persons/beings/whomever they believe deserves these specific rights. I think that the spectrum in regards to "rights" varies depending on the circumstance, the context, the being (human, animal, group, individual, etc). Do I believe that there are some rights that belong to animals that we should respect? Yes. Do I think they are on the same scale or in the same context as the rights that (should) belong to all people? Absolutely not. I think that when we're dealing with specific scenarios a system has to be in place to be able to weigh out these "rights". If a person murders someone, do we violate the said "right to live" entitlement to make a point that murder is wrong? I think this open-ended debate definitely relies on context in order to even begin to make sense.
ReplyDeleteI think that rights, as Gregory stated, “ be extended only to entities that have the capacity to reason or choose.” Since animals cannot speak or act about on rights, they don’t have rights. As humans, we are able to speak out opinions in many ways: protests, speeches, etc.… Right should be given out to people who understand the consequences and advantages, and I think human beings have the instinct to do this. If rights should be passed on through generations, I don’t think people will appreciate the kind of civilization we live in. They will get everything handed to them. Rights should be given to those who deserve. I am not saying that the majority of people in the world do not deserve rights, but rights are something that people chaerish.
ReplyDeleteThis is extremely delicate and largely ambiguous ground that we're treading on. I find it mildly disturbing (albeit apparently unavoidable) that the task of dictating which living organisms on planet Earth deserve existential or psychological acknowledgment falls to us. Yes, we're supposedly the most evolutionarily/intellectually advanced beings, but it strikes me as rather amusing that we have appointed ourselves as gods among millions of species, the true capacities of whom we can only ever dream of fully grasping. But that's a hopeless tangent so I'll just leave the hierarchal aspect of this issue out for now.
ReplyDeleteThere is no concrete line that can be drawn between animals with capacities for suffering/sentience/abstract thought etc. etc. and those without. We have set preferences as a society as to which organisms we deem appropriate to murder, regardless of the aforementioned requirements. It's all well and good to talk about which beings deserve "rights" from behind a checklist of characteristics, but when it comes down to it, chickens are slaughtered every day, yet the murder of a dog could start a riot. Mentally and physically deficient humans or comatose patients are treated with the utmost care, yet one could argue that several animals are more fully functioning members of the planet than the former.
Because of the expansive (let's face it, virtually all-encompassing) gray area that is animal vs. human rights, I don't believe that there is a true solution that isn't riddled with hypocrisy and contradiction.
I have always thought that any animal with the capacity to suffer deserves basic rights, such as life and food and not being beaten. But sentient beings should obviously have more rights. They have the ability to recognize and appreciate these rights. I think humans should have more rights than any animal, be it sentient or not. I think it would be foolish to allow chimpanzees to vote or to marry. Even if they have some form of rational thought, it is not on the same level as people and their rights should not extend to things they do not even understand.
ReplyDelete