AC -- a very commendable attempt to outline a definition of the rights of an animal!
My comments
1) "right to individual freedom" if you do choose to include this, you'll have to explain very clearly what "freedom" is. To humans, probably freedom of action, freedom of speech, freedom to information.
what about animals?
2) the same goes for the rest of the rights. e.g the right to survive naturally? do you mean, free of captivity?
Personally, I love animals but animals having rights? What do you mean? What type of rights? If you are talking about stop killing endangered species, I would galdly support it.
For joshua and jonathan, you can always argue that they SHOULD NOT have rights.
Jonathan: you are absolutely right to say that we treat different animals differently, according them different treatment to suit out desires.
Maybe your point is, "no rights for all animals. there can never be a consensus. case closed"
On the other hand, we could decide on a certain baseline. For example, how animals should be kept or how animal should be killed (not WHETHER they should be killed).
14 Comments:
At 9:31 AM,
Wee Sing said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 9:32 AM,
carmen said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 11:09 AM,
changzee said…
Good start!
Going along with your argument, what about the eating of animals?
At 8:16 PM,
changzee said…
AC -- Your last question is an EXCELLENT one! Your group has to define what the rights are.
"So then, what will be the benchmark for the animals that have rights ???"
In the discussion cafe, the first person has to define and create the benchmark for what you think the "right" of an animal should be.
At 10:11 AM,
changzee said…
AC -- a very commendable attempt to outline a definition of the rights of an animal!
My comments
1) "right to individual freedom"
if you do choose to include this, you'll have to explain very clearly what "freedom" is. To humans, probably freedom of action, freedom of speech, freedom to information.
what about animals?
2) the same goes for the rest of the rights. e.g the right to survive naturally? do you mean, free of captivity?
good going so far!
At 6:26 PM,
changzee said…
hi AC
The following definition is ok. Needs some refining in terms of grammar but content is fine.
"For the born in the nature shall be protected from poachers and any human intervention"
The rest of the definition raises more questions.
What if I raise animals, treat them right and kill them for food in the end? Am I violating your definition of animal rights?
The rest of the group -- start thinking too!
At 12:21 PM,
Anonymous said…
Personally, I love animals but animals having rights? What do you mean? What type of rights?
If you are talking about stop killing endangered species, I would galdly support it.
At 9:50 PM,
changzee said…
Yes, i've been asking the group, "what would you define as animal rights?"
AC(phantom supremo) has been trying to draw up a defnition and so far has come up with a rough one.
Everyone else in the group must help to refine it.
Anyone wants to help?
At 12:14 AM,
changzee said…
A very passionate response there. Nice. I'm too tired to reply though. :)
Will respond to this tomorrow.
At 10:02 PM,
changzee said…
Hi joshua ( or is it jonathan? forgot to bring my register home)
your argument is very structured. well-expressed too (though sounding a tad too harsh :) )
My comments and food for thought in the following post. Not meant to oppose or to concur, just a response.
At 10:15 PM,
changzee said…
1. all "rights" are created by humans (mostly men actually :))
2. We decide how much right we have to do things.
3. at the same time, we also decide who has rights and how we can strip someone of their rights.
4. for example, we decide that anyone below a certain age has no "right" to vote.
Why? because we ASSUME that he/she is not mature enough
5. for example, we take away the right to freedom for someone who has committed a crime. He goes to jail.
Why? because we ASSUME that he/she should be punished this way.
6. My point so fat? that human rights are conferred by humans too. And they change all the time.
7. using the same line of argument, humans confer some "rights" to animals.
Why? because we ASSUME that we should/should not do certain things to animals.
8. Yes, you are right that the "rights" of animals are arbitrary (in singlish, it means "anyhow"). Humans decide on what suits humankind best.
9. But does that not apply to human rights too?
At 10:24 PM,
changzee said…
1. Animals have no "voice' to speak up. there is no "right" to speak of. You are absolutely correct.
2. Women had few rights in the past. In many parts of the world, women STILL have few rights.
Now, technically, yes, they can speak up for themselves. But due to their circumstances, they are unable to.
3. therefore, there are non-profit groups; there is the UN to "speak up" for them.
4. it's the same for animals. there is a group of people who want to "speak up" for animals.
5. You are spot-on, of course when you write that the animals may not NEED us to speak up for them.
6.And so, this brings us back to the point of issue -- should we then confer animals rights?
At 10:14 AM,
changzee said…
I think this topic is arguable.
For joshua and jonathan, you can always argue that they SHOULD NOT have rights.
Jonathan: you are absolutely right to say that we treat different animals differently, according them different treatment to suit out desires.
Maybe your point is, "no rights for all animals. there can never be a consensus. case closed"
On the other hand, we could decide on a certain baseline. For example, how animals should be kept or how animal should be killed (not WHETHER they should be killed).
At 10:15 AM,
changzee said…
eLearning week is now officially over. If you choose to blog on to discuss more with your group members, do go on. This will definitely help you in your discussion café.
I would be still accessing this whenever I can.
Post a Comment
<< Home