Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 42 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 419

Thread: Animal Rights. What's all that about then?

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member RootofStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    895
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Animal Rights. What's all that about then?

    There is a lot of confusing about what animal rights means - does it mean violence toward humans, or is it part of the peace movement; does it mean the vegan police will be kicking down your door to check the content of your fridge?; does it a meatless, petless society?

    I have begun this thread to help clarify what animal rights means in the 21st century. What would it mean for Ireland?

    The leading contemporary exponent of animal rights philosophy is law professor Gary L. Francione who has developed his abolitionist approach to animal rights. Here he talks about what a right is: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/...ng-of-a-right/

    The Six Principles of the Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights

    1. The abolitionist approach to animal rights maintains that all sentient beings, humans or nonhumans, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.

    2. Our recognition of the one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation—because it assumes that animals are the property of humans.

    3. Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism, we reject speciesism. The species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, age, or sexual orientation is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans.

    4. We recognize that we will not abolish overnight the property status of nonhumans, but we will support only those campaigns and positions that explicitly promote the abolitionist agenda. We will not support positions that call for supposedly “improved” regulation of animal exploitation. We reject any campaign that promotes sexism, racism, heterosexism or other forms of discrimination against humans.

    5. We recognize that the most important step that any of us can take toward abolition is to adopt the vegan lifestyle and to educate others about veganism. Veganism is the principle of abolition applied to one’s personal life and the consumption of any meat, fowl, fish, or dairy product, or the wearing or use of animal products, is inconsistent with the abolitionist perspective.

    6. We recognize the principle of nonviolence as the guiding principle of the animal rights movement. Violence is the problem; it is not any part of the solution.



    If possible, I would like this thread to be filled with polite discussion rather than the usual stuff that occurs on P.ie when "animal rights" is talked about. I do understand that I am not in any position to lay down rules but I'd like to think we could have an intelligent debate about the idea of animal rights.

    Ros

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member sauntersplash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,456
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RootofStar View Post
    1. The abolitionist approach to animal rights maintains that all sentient beings, humans or nonhumans, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.
    I only got this far I'm afraid. Everyday in everyway it is made clear that every person and animal is the property of others. To see any agent as being independent from obligation, authority and regulation is philosophically naive in the extreme. As is introducing any thinker as the leading authority on a topic.
    "No." - Rosa Parks

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member RootofStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    895
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sauntersplash View Post
    I only got this far I'm afraid. Everyday in everyway it is made clear that every person and animal is the property of others. To see any agent as being independent from obligation, authority and regulation is philosophically naive in the extreme. As is introducing any thinker as the leading authority on a topic.

    Are you suggesting that "being independent from obligation, authority and regulation," which seems to be a valid sociological statement, is the same as being the property of others?

    I'm perfectly happy to say that Professor Francione is "a prominent contemporary proponent of animal rights" if that's better for you.


    Ros

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sauntersplash View Post
    I only got this far I'm afraid. Everyday in everyway it is made clear that every person and animal is the property of others. To see any agent as being independent from obligation, authority and regulation is philosophically naive in the extreme. As is introducing any thinker as the leading authority on a topic.
    It should probably read "solely as the property of others." That would bring it in line with Kant's categorical imperative. (but I think the 'solely' is implied by the understanding of 'property' being used).

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RootofStar View Post
    There is a lot of confusing about what animal rights means - does it mean violence toward humans, or is it part of the peace movement; does it mean the vegan police will be kicking down your door to check the content of your fridge?; does it a meatless, petless society?

    I have begun this thread to help clarify what animal rights means in the 21st century. What would it mean for Ireland?
    You've made a serious error here in assuming that there's only one valid interpretation of the term "animal rights."

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member RootofStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    895
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fool View Post
    You've made a serious error here in assuming that there's only one valid interpretation of the term "animal rights."

    There are several different visions of animal rights - the animal rights philosophers do not agree totally on the subject, as one would expect, and the "animal rights movement" tends to use the term "animal rights" rhetorically, as utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer does and organisations like PeTA and ARAN do.

    The rights-based animal rights philosophers most talked about are Tom Regan (The Case for Animal Rights) and Gary Francione (Introduction to Animal Rights). I assume nothing, except that this thread may give me a headache.



    Ros

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    23,513
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Animal rights? Animal welfare? Two different ways of thinking.

    And I think RoS only went heavy in the posting on the mink thread to get above the threshold for posting a thread so as to post this thread. The topic of which has already had threads extant on this forum.
    The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy. EU Army coming to be, the feckin' conspiracy nuts on Lisbon were right on this one.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member RootofStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    895
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myksav View Post
    Animal rights? Animal welfare? Two different ways of thinking.

    And I think RoS only went heavy in the posting on the mink thread to get above the threshold for posting a thread so as to post this thread. The topic of which has already had threads extant on this forum.

    You are a conspiracy theorist, right?


    Ros

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5,306
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    What happens when a lion kills a gazelle?

    "non-speciesism" surely dictates an arrest be made and murder trial be convened.
    After all, "rights" have been violated.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5,306
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fool View Post
    You've made a serious error here in assuming that there's only one valid interpretation of the term "animal rights."
    Even worse. An error as been made thinking that you can simply manufacture a contorted meaning for a word already in use and claim yours is the correct usage.

Page 1 of 42 1234511 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •