Look: — baker

You then created two hypothetical examples which had no bearing on what I said, as if they represented what I said.

Humans are different to animals because they have symbolic communication, can take alternative courses of action, foresee the consequences of what they do, and act from a variety of motives.

Of course animals have a will to live, they suffer if abused, they can be unhappy or happy, they can flourish or be miserable. But that doesn't mean that the concept of 'animal rights' is meaningful.

You then created two hypothetical examples which had no bearing on what I said, as if they represented what I said. — Wayfarer

You missed the first line:
You are assuming too much uniformity and unanimousness for humans.

What you're saying isn't limited to how humans think of animals; it's also how humans think of other (categories) of humans.

Humans are different to animals because they have symbolic communication, can take alternative courses of action, foresee the consequences of what they do, and act from a variety of motives.

Of course animals have a will to live, they suffer if abused, they can be unhappy or happy, they can flourish or be miserable. But that doesn't mean that the concept of 'animal rights' is meaningful.

I'm in no way disagreeing with the latter. I've been saying that the general human dismissal of animals has the same structure as when (categories of) humans dismiss other (categories of) humans.
And if humans won't even accept other humans as human, and deny them as being holders of rights, what consideration can humans be expected to have for animals?

The notion of animal rights is just as shaky as the notion of human rights.

My chain saw keeps quitting on me. — James Riley

:)

A person is offered a free vaccine. He doesn't take it. He get's sick and starts dying. He runs to the hospital and begs for help. We can sit around with our couldashouldawoulda all day long. That doesn't influence his actions. — James Riley

So this is another individual subjective principle of our moral system. An individual decides not to get vaccinated, and when afflicted with virus, runs to the hospital and begs for help. With the assumption that he is a moral agent, and decides to go against the prevailing scientific belief that vaccination works, we have to think about whether admitting such decision within our system makes the system unstable. Well, does it?

Often we can accommodate such modalities given a small number of occurrence. Often the stability of a system is tied to the size of modalities -- or divergent actions. I believe we have in place a device that could measure it, and once a number of unacceptable divergence is reached, we are also equipped to deal with it. But should we really wait until it rocks the boat?

You missed the first line:
You are assuming too much uniformity and unanimousness for humans. — baker

Humans are not all the same but for the purposes of determining human rights, are treated as equals.

if an individual decides not to get vaccinated, and when afflicted with virus, runs to the hospital and begs for help. With the assumption that he is a moral agent, and decides to go against the prevailing scientific belief that vaccination works, we have to think about whether admitting such decision within our system makes the system unstable. Well, does it? — Caldwell

Your writing is not clear here. What do you mean by 'admitting such decision'?

I have read acounts of doctors and healthcare workers who are caring for COVID patients who had refused vaccination until it was too late. They said they found it exasperating, but endeavoured to do their best for the patient.

I certainly believe that those who refuse vaccination on purportedly conscientious grounds might have their civil freedoms curtailed, i.e. not be allowed into venues or airplanes, but there's already a thread for that debate.

I've just noticed the title of the OP again. 'Animals are innocent' in that they're incapable of moral culpability. It is for that reason that it is meaningless to speak of their 'rights'. But at least I know that is a very controversial idea, and even why it is. I would be very surprised if anyone participating could articulate why that is.

With the assumption that he is a moral agent, and decides to go against the prevailing scientific belief that vaccination works, we have to think about whether admitting such decision within our system makes the system unstable. Well, does it? — Caldwell

Now I agree that that-there is beyond the scope of this thread. I argued it with Frank.

Often we can accommodate such modalities given a small number of occurrence. Often the stability of a system is tied to the size of modalities -- or divergent actions. I believe we have in place a device that could measure it, and once a number of unacceptable divergence is reached, we are also equipped to deal with it. But should we really wait until it rocks the boat? — Caldwell

It's like the state's different reasons for punishment: it depends on what your goals are. I like to see people be forced to take personal responsibility for their own actions. But I also like third parties to see a magnanimous state, so long as that doesn't encourage bad behavior. And a soft-broke horse is not broken, whereas a hard-broke horse is. Regardless, we should consider those who play by the rules for positive treatment at the front of the line.

Bringing this back to animals: See horse. They should be at the front of the line with positive treatment. Morality didn't factor into their decision-making (Notwithstanding that occasional Molly who holds a grudge. Best not to quick-her whilst giving a pedicure).

Humans are not all the same but for the purposes of determining human rights, are treated as equal for those purposes. — Wayfarer

But who actually cares about this purported equality? Perhaps the lawmakers, in the abstract. But for practical intents and purposes, nobody does. There is a clear discrepancy between the legal ideal, and the actual reality. So why ignore the obvious?

I certainly believe that those who refuse vaccination on purportedly conscientious grounds might have their civil freedoms curtailed, i.e. not be allowed into venues or airplanes, but there's already a thread for that debate. — Wayfarer

"admitting such decision" -- should we accept an individual subjective decision - not get vaccinated -- into our system? Maybe not well chosen words by me.

I agree. Like I said, we need to examine our moral system -- the elements of fidelity, of what is rational, and the punishment for divergent behavior. I guess when philosophers speak of pluralism, it means examining a divergent action and see which one of the elements in our moral system is affected. Lying certainly affects trustworthiness, refusing to follow health protocol certainly affects the health of others, and so on.

So, what should be the treatment of such divergent behavior? Banning them from airplanes, venues, etc. And yes, if they're taking up limited resources -- hospital emergency rooms do not exist in infinite amount of units -- then that is the risk they have to take.

With the assumption that he is a moral agent, and decides to go against the prevailing scientific belief that vaccination works, we have to think about whether admitting such decision within our system makes the system unstable. Well, does it? — Caldwell

This is too simplistic. The fact is that sometimes, people get vaccinated and get sick from the vaccine, or get covid despite being vaccinated.

If the state of facts would be "If you get vaccinated, you're safe from covid and you don't get sick from the vaccine", your line of reasoning would hold. But clearly, it's not the case.

We could morally hold it against people if they don't get vaccinated only if the vaccines would actually be 100% safe and effective. But they're not, so if we want to launch a moral charge against the unvaccinated, it has to be based on some other grounds. Such as, for example, "It is immoral to refuse to take upon oneself the risk and cost of experimental vaccination in the case of a pandemic", or "It is immoral to go against social expectations."

This is too simplistic. The fact is that sometimes, people get vaccinated and get sick from the vaccine, or get covid despite being vaccinated. — baker

Obviously, this is not exhaustive of all the issues we could talk about vaccination. We are just touching the surface, giving cursory treatment of the subject.

Well, as I said, there's a thread on vaccination ethics. Suffice to say, if a deadly disease began to appear in the canine population which could be spread to humans,and a vaccine developed which could prevent it, it would be meaningless to consult with the dogs as to whether they agree to be vaccinated or not, so the question of whether they have a right not to be vaccinated is an empty one.

↪Caldwell
Well, as I said, there's a thread on vaccination ethics. Suffice to say, if a deadly disease began to appear in the canine population which could be spread to humans, it would be meaningless to consult with the dogs as to whether they agree to be vaccinated or not, so the question of whether they have a right not to be vaccinated is an empty one. — Wayfarer

But this is a facetious comment.

I never said that they have rationality, an element of moral system. Does it even occur to us what should be our role as far as the animals are concerned even if we couldn't eat them? As custodians? Guardians?

I feel like I'm teaching the alphabet here.

I feel like I'm teaching the alphabet here. — Caldwell

And I feel like you're continuing to miss the point, which is about rights. You seem to be saying that animal rights can be justified on the basis that they have a will to live. Whereas, I'm arguing that rights pertain to humans, because they are rational agents, and not to animals, because they are not. Can you recognise that distinction?

If not animal rights then perhaps stricter animal welfare laws?

Is that possible?

As I've said, I'm fully in support of animal welfare laws. What I feel is being lost in this discussion, is the nature of rights.

Whereas, I'm arguing that rights pertain to humans, because they are rational agents, and not to animals, because they are not. — Wayfarer

How do you figure that animals are not rational agents? By your human fiat?

How do you figure that animals are not rational agents? By your human fiat? — baker

That's why I went back to the basics -- the will, where everyone has equal shot at getting acknowledgement. Animals can't win when we start talking about rationality.

That's why I went back to the basics -- the will, where everyone has equal shot at getting acknowledgement. Animals can't win when we start talking about rationality. — Caldwell

Nor can children, the disabled, Jews, women, blacks, the poor, or any other category of humans that is disenfranchized in any given context.
IOW, what you're saying about animals is not specific to animals or how humans treat animals; it pertains to categories of humans too.

And I feel like you're continuing to miss the point, which is about rights. You seem to be saying that animal rights can be justified on the basis that they have a will to live. Whereas, I'm arguing that rights pertain to humans, because they are rational agents, and not to animals, because they are not. Can you recognise that distinction? — Wayfarer

Right, rights.

Since some of you have been pushing for animal rights, my response is, yes let's give them rights, but that isn't strong enough. I already said before, rights is not the cure-all regarding animal treatment. For example, here you are already saying that rights pertain to humans. So I say, let's go beyond that. Let's examine the will of the animals. Let's give them the natural proclivity to live in their natural habitat.

What I'm getting at is that if you want to devise a perspective for a better treatment of animals, it will have to be such that is indeed unique for animals; or it will have to be so universal that it will pertain to all living beings.

With the former, you'd then have to decide upon issues such as whether rats and cockroaches deserve the same good treatment as cows or dogs.

The latter is so all-encompassing as to be paralyzing.

Let's examine the will of the animals. Let's give them the natural proclivity to live in their natural habitat. — Caldwell

And evict humans?

And evict humans? — baker

Another facetious remark.

*Sigh*

Since some of you have been pushing for animal rights, my response is, yes let's give them rights, but that isn't strong enough. — Caldwell

I still don't think you've grasped the reason why I'm saying that 'animal rights' is a meaningless concept. And I don't agree with the animal rights ideology that says humans and animals are equal, but if the uniqueness of h. sapiens is not obvious, then I don't know what argument could be used to establish it.

but if the uniqueness of h. sapiens is not obvious, then I don't know what argument could be used to establish it. — Wayfarer

Let's start here.

What would it take to have some form of humane treatment for the animals.

Another facetious remark. — Caldwell

You keep forgetting that resources on planet Earth are limited and that life is a struggle for resources. Humans and animals compete for the same resources.

Any argument for animal welfare has to take this into consideration. Animal welfare comes at the cost of human welfare. In order for humans to treat animals better, humans would need to sacrifice their own comfort. And for doing this, they would need to have some very good reasons.

What would it take to have some form of humane treatment for the animals. — Caldwell

Humans would need to sacrifice some (or much) of their comforts.
Material ones, such as space and natural resources. And psychological ones, such as the feeling of human superiority over animals.

What would it take to have some form of humane treatment for the animals? — Caldwell

Again - I'm not disputing the importance of animal welfare. I donate to the RSPCA. I'm responding to the first sentence in the OP, about 'animal rights'. I find that a philosophical issue of interest.

but if the uniqueness of h. sapiens is not obvious, then I don't know what argument could be used to establish it. — Wayfarer

Outside of a religious/ideological context, there is no such argument.

Ever heard the Buddhist expression, 'this precious human life'? Do you know what that's about? Why human life, in particular, is so designated?

Ever heard the Buddhist expression, 'this precious human life'? Do you know what that's about? Why human life, in particular, is so designated? — Wayfarer

Because the human form is said to be the one most suitable for attaining enlightenment.
But, like I said, outside of a religious/ideological context, there is no argument for human uniqueness. Moving the whole discussion into a specific religious/ideological context is a step that requires special justification.

Moving the whole discussion into a specific religious/ideological context is a step that requires special justification. — baker

That says something, doesn't it? So now, religious or philosophical conviction is 'special pleading', and the secular view is normative. Is that it?