ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

[animalrightsmalta]

Strict basic rights are fundamental and irrevocable. Other benefits (like assistance to comatose people) are an act of kindness (unless we have a sort of social contract that gives us the right to treatment if we become comatose - but this is another kind of right, and is optional).

Then I see this as a contradiction in your (and Gary's) ethics. Contradictions are illogical. This could be used against us if we were presenting our case (and I'm sure any non-AR person WOULD use it against us).

Where's the contradiction?

[animalrightsmalta]

Leave it to malta not to get distracted by the interesting additional layers of conditions, but just grasp the fundamentals of the situation and argue accordingly! Thanks for the clear and complete explanations of your conclusions. Very helpful to me.

Actually I forgot to mention one important fact which corraborates what I said.

The true conflict in the case of (let's say) an AIDS victim is with the AIDS virus, and not the chimpanzee that the vivisector would experiment on. So the true "dilemma" is whether one should kill the AIDS virus (if possible) or let the AIDS victim die. Of course, we know there is no such dilemma because viruses are not sentient, so we should definitely kill the virus.

However, should we drag an innocent into the dilemma? This would be like grabbing a rabbit and throwing him to the lion just to save the gazelle.

[EcoTribalVegan]

Strict basic rights are fundamental and irrevocable. Other benefits (like assistance to comatose people) are an act of kindness (unless we have a sort of social contract that gives us the right to treatment if we become comatose - but this is another kind of right, and is optional).

Then I see this as a contradiction in your (and Gary's) ethics. Contradictions are illogical. This could be used against us if we were presenting our case (and I'm sure any non-AR person WOULD use it against us).

Where's the contradiction?

That your guideline is sentience determine rights. But then you have an unsentient being you're granting rights to because it used to be sentient. The minute anything becomes unsentient it should lose it's rights, and the moment anything exhibits signs of sentience it should have rights. This is according to your argument (and my own). Sentience is a great place to draw the line; provided you don't have any exceptions.

However, should we drag an innocent into the dilemma? This would be like grabbing a rabbit and throwing him to the lion just to save the gazelle.

Once again we're in complete agreement. Firs of all, with your rabbit example, it would probably be a sacrifice in vain. I doubt a rabbit would provide a meal for even one lion. So like the case of the sacrificed blood donor, this isn't even for the greater good since more lives would have to be sacrificed.

[animalrightsmalta]

Where's the contradiction?

That your guideline is sentience determine rights. But then you have an unsentient being you're granting rights to because it used to be sentient. The minute anything becomes unsentient it should lose it's rights, and the moment anything exhibits signs of sentience it should have rights. This is according to your argument (and my own). Sentience is a great place to draw the line; provided you don't have any exceptions.

Still no contradiction. Suppose I say that you have the right to one apple, but I decide to give you two. Is that a contradiction? I think not. I would be simply giving you more than your entitlement by right, and would be fine unless by giving you more than is your due I would be denying others their fair share.

Once again we're in complete agreement. First of all, with your rabbit example, it would probably be a sacrifice in vain. I doubt a rabbit would provide a meal for even one lion. So like the case of the sacrificed blood donor, this isn't even for the greater good since more lives would have to be sacrificed.

Ok, make it a cow instead of a rabbit.

[EcoTribalVegan]

Still no contradiction. Suppose I say that you have the right to one apple, but I decide to give you two. Is that a contradiction? I think not. I would be simply giving you more than your entitlement by right, and would be fine unless by giving you more than is your due I would be denying others their fair share.

Breaking ration laws and determining intrinsic rights are completely different. This analogy has nothing to do with the issue at hand here!

You're simply contradicting your own position because of this emotional outcry (emotions are illogical for the most part) that because something WAS sentient and no longer is, they should still have rights. We should give rights to all beings because of this contradiction. Either make sentience the determinate for rights or make it something arbitrary. The ball is in your court now...

Ok, make it a cow instead of a rabbit.

They do this in Zoos...But once again just change the parameters when I come up with a reply. Why I very much dislike hypotheticals.

But if it were a cow, it would probably throw everything out of whack. Cows are a herd animals, so if you threw one, it wouldn't stand much of a chance - but I guess that's the point since you want to sacrifice things. It still doesn't maintain the "greater good" concept you'd like to portray as some perverse thing. An animal that is not evolved to have a lion as a predator is probably for the greater harm. The only thing perverse is that you keep claiming we should sacrifice things. Never in my view of "natural" utilitarianism did I ever claim that. You continually claim that as a strawman fallacy.

[animalrightsmalta]

Still no contradiction. Suppose I say that you have the right to one apple, but I decide to give you two. Is that a contradiction? I think not. I would be simply giving you more than your entitlement by right, and would be fine unless by giving you more than is your due I would be denying others their fair share.

Breaking ration laws and determining intrinsic rights are completely different. This analogy has nothing to do with the issue at hand here!

You're simply contradicting your own position because of this emotional outcry (emotions are illogical for the most part) that because something WAS sentient and no longer is, they should still have rights. We should give rights to all beings because of this contradiction. Either make sentience the determinate for rights or make it something arbitrary. The ball is in your court now...

Sentience is the determinant of rights. However, human society creates community rights which go over and above natural rights (a kind of social contract for living in society - legal rights designed to make life better). If I am sentient I have a natural right to life and liberty. However, if I live in human society, I have rights that go beyond life and liberty (because humans have decided so - in their own interests) and my liberty is also restricted as a means to defend the rights of others. There is no contradiction in this. To be given rights over and above natural rights and to have some restriction on some rights out of choice (because we live in civilized society) says nothing that contradicts sentience being the prerequisite of natural rights, simply because the other rights have nothing to do with natural rights - they are only rights which humans decide to give to themselves and others out of choice.

Ok, make it a cow instead of a rabbit.

They do this in Zoos...But once again just change the parameters when I come up with a reply. Why I very much dislike hypotheticals.

I changed the parameters only because I did not presume the necessity of making a perfect hypothetical, since I did not predict that you would focus on trivialities just to prove a point. If I had used "cow" in the first place, I wouldn't have given you the opportunity to tell me I'm changing parameters. The point is not to prove I am a good philosopher (which I am not). The point is actually to put a point across in a way that others understand what I have to say. If the message is taken, then any talk of "changing parameters" is sidetracking of the debate.

That they do it in zoos (feed cows to lions) says nothing about the merit of my hypothetical. It only demonstrates that zoos violate rights.

But if it were a cow, it would probably throw everything out of whack. Cows are a herd animals, so if you threw one, it wouldn't stand much of a chance - but I guess that's the point since you want to sacrifice things. It still doesn't maintain the "greater good" concept you'd like to portray as some perverse thing. An animal that is not evolved to have a lion as a predator is probably for the greater harm. The only thing perverse is that you keep claiming we should sacrifice things. Never in my view of "natural" utilitarianism did I ever claim that. You continually claim that as a strawman fallacy.

The "greater good" thing is not some "perverse thing". It's just that I believe that intrinsic rights trump the "greater good" even if and when the "greater good" can only be obtained by violating individual rights.

[EcoTribalVegan]

Sentience is the determinant of rights. However, human society creates community rights which go over and above natural rights (a kind of social contract for living in society - legal rights designed to make life better). If I am sentient I have a natural right to life and liberty. However, if I live in human society, I have rights that go beyond life and liberty (because humans have decided so - in their own interests) and my liberty is also restricted as a means to defend the rights of others. There is no contradiction in this. To be given rights over and above natural rights and to have some restriction on some rights out of choice (because we live in civilized society) says nothing that contradicts sentience being the prerequisite of natural rights, simply because the other rights have nothing to do with natural rights - they are only rights which humans decide to give to themselves and others out of choice.

There is a contradiction if you agree with what society lays out for us. Not only is there a contradiction but your argument could be regarded as speciesist. You can keep saying there's no contradiction all you want. It doesn't make it true.

Another thing, before we grant fundamental rights on the basis of a species, we should have a good definition of humanity. For as far as my sources indicate (dictionary's, medical sources, etc.) it only includes beings with 22 + 1 sex chromosome from each parent for a total of 46. The definition of humanity and the granting of rights is contradictory of itself. Not to mention to be a part of the same species one has to not only be able to reproduce, but produce viable offspring. Something people with certain genetic disorders, diseases or infections cannot do. I'm showing you a logical contradiction in your argument. I do so out of the suggestion you could strengthen your argument. If you choose to ignore it that's your folly not mine.

Not to mention, there is nothing "civilised" about a society with a rigid arbitrary heirarchy...I'm honestly surprised you're using a system of specist laws as your guideline for how rights should be allocated. Hence my statement in my first paragraph...

I changed the parameters only because I did not presume the necessity of making a perfect hypothetical, since I did not predict that you would focus on trivialities just to prove a point. If I had used "cow" in the first place, I wouldn't have given you the opportunity to tell me I'm changing parameters. The point is not to prove I am a good philosopher (which I am not). The point is actually to put a point across in a way that others understand what I have to say. If the message is taken, then any talk of "changing parameters" is sidetracking of the debate.

You're focusing on trivialities in an ATTEMPT to prove your point? Why wouldn't I return the favour? I've already explained why I dislike hypotheticals. You clearly ignored that. I don't need to justify myself to you if you're just going to ignore my arguments.

It's not sidetracking, it's you being a hypocrite. When I am given a stupid hypothetical, my intent is to refute it. I need the facts to do so. Hence my earlier comment you ignored...

That they do it in zoos (feed cows to lions) says nothing about the merit of my hypothetical. It only demonstrates that zoos violate rights.

Well you're talking about sacrificing animals for feeding lions. I didn't realise it had to be in the wild for one (because it wasn't specified)! Not to mention since you take civilisation as our baseline I thought this would be an acceptable argument according to you...

The "greater good" thing is not some "perverse thing". It's just that I believe that intrinsic rights trump the "greater good" even if and when the "greater good" can only be obtained by violating individual rights.

And I agree rights SHOULD be violated if someone is about to violate someone elses. Having a disease sucks yes. But that doesn't make the person you are about to sacrifice a violator of these diseased persons rights. It's up to the diseased people to come forward and test new treatments on themselves (to support my anti-vivisection stance once again). Not allowing others to be sacrificed potentially meaninglessly. Since animals have different physiologies and different susceptablilities to different diseases, it's stupid to cause MORE injury for a very unsure thing.

In the case of the lion, it is out of self-preservation that they need to kill a gazelle. Therefore it doesn't violate any rights, as unfortunate as it is that a gazelle be killed.

[animalrightsmalta]

There is a contradiction if you agree with what society lays out for us. Not only is there a contradiction but your argument could be regarded as speciesist. You can keep saying there's no contradiction all you want. It doesn't make it true.

You're misunderstanding and perhaps unintentionally misrepresenting what I wrote. In short, I wrote that all sentient animals have basic fundamental rights such as the right to life and liberty. However, society may decide to give its members additional rights, such as the right to healthcare and education. Other societies, including non-human societies, could equally give themselves such rights if they had a concept of rights and morality (maybe they do and maybe they don't).

So in giving contractual rights to humans (such as the right to healthcare and education) we are going over and above what is naturally due to us. And since we're not taking anything away from other animals, but only giving ourselves additional benefits, we have every right to organize our society so.

There is no contradiction. Let me spell it out clearly: No one has a natural right to healthcare and education. That is a contractual right. Would it be speciesist if we deny a cow the right to education? I think not. Education is not a basic/fundamental/natural right.

Just because we can organize our own societies in a way that provides us with benefits that go over and above what is naturally due to us and other animals can't, does not deny us the right to organize our society so, provided that in doing so, we do not infringe the natural rights of others.

Another thing, before we grant fundamental rights on the basis of a species

I never did so. The only prerequisite for having fundamental rights is sentience. The only rights I am granting on the basis of species are not fundamental rights. The "right" to healthcare and education is not a fundamental right. It's a contractual right. The only reason I am entitled to healthcare is because I either pay taxes which go towards free healthcare, or I pay a health insurance policy which goes to my healthcare. Healthcare is not a fundamental natural right.

, we should have a good definition of humanity. For as far as my sources indicate (dictionary's, medical sources, etc.) it only includes beings with 22 + 1 sex chromosome from each parent for a total of 46. The definition of humanity and the granting of rights is contradictory of itself. Not to mention to be a part of the same species one has to not only be able to reproduce, but produce viable offspring. Something people with certain genetic disorders, diseases or infections cannot do. I'm showing you a logical contradiction in your argument. I do so out of the suggestion you could strengthen your argument. If you choose to ignore it that's your folly not mine.

Depends on what rights you are speaking of. Basic rights such as the right to life and liberty are owed to any sentient being. Other rights are arbitrary and contractual "by nature".

Not to mention, there is nothing "civilised" about a society with a rigid arbitrary heirarchy...I'm honestly surprised you're using a system of specist laws as your guideline for how rights should be allocated. Hence my statement in my first paragraph...

That's only because you're confusing natural basic rights with contractual rights. Hierarchy has no place in my scheme.

You're focusing on trivialities in an ATTEMPT to prove your point? Why wouldn't I return the favour?

Why not? Because I'm NOT focusing on trivialities. It is you who mentioned the triviality (what if...rabbit not cow). My point was that an innocent is sacrificed instead of another.

I've already explained why I dislike hypotheticals. You clearly ignored that. I don't need to justify myself to you if you're just going to ignore my arguments.

To claim that you dislike hypotheticals is not an argument. What you're asking is for me to debate on your own terms (by not using hypotheticals). I will use hypotheticals if I believe that they demonstrate the point I wish to make. You have every right to ignore the hypotheticals if you so wish. I will not criticize your means of putting your point across. I will only say that I agree when I do agree, and say that I disagree when I don't, and give my own reasons why I don't.

It's not sidetracking, it's you being a hypocrite. When I am given a stupid hypothetical, my intent is to refute it. I need the facts to do so. Hence my earlier comment you ignored...

So I'm a hypocrite now. Thanks.

That they do it in zoos (feed cows to lions) says nothing about the merit of my hypothetical. It only demonstrates that zoos violate rights.

Well you're talking about sacrificing animals for feeding lions. I didn't realise it had to be in the wild for one (because it wasn't specified)! Not to mention since you take civilisation as our baseline I thought this would be an acceptable argument according to you...

Where did I claim civilisation to be our baseline? As for sacrificing animals for feeding lions, I was saying that that is wrong, since no innocent should be sacrificed on behalf of another.

The "greater good" thing is not some "perverse thing". It's just that I believe that intrinsic rights trump the "greater good" even if and when the "greater good" can only be obtained by violating individual rights.

And I agree rights SHOULD be violated if someone is about to violate someone elses.

Actually the only justification for violating rights is if it is the only way to survive. If not, then we wouldn't be violating any rights if we stop someone from violating someone else's rights.

Having a disease sucks yes. But that doesn't make the person you are about to sacrifice a violator of these diseased persons rights.

Of course not. That's what I'm saying all along.

It's up to the diseased people to come forward and test new treatments on themselves (to support my anti-vivisection stance once again). Not allowing others to be sacrificed potentially meaninglessly. Since animals have different physiologies and different susceptablilities to different diseases, it's stupid to cause MORE injury for a very unsure thing.

Although I would add that even if the benefits were sure, sacrificing one (or many) for the sake of another would still be wrong. Humans have similar physiologies and similar susceptibilities to the same diseases, but forcing someone to act as a test subject is still wrong, even if success is guaranteed.

In the case of the lion, it is out of self-preservation that they need to kill a gazelle. Therefore it doesn't violate any rights, as unfortunate as it is that a gazelle be killed.

Well...the way I would put it is that both the lion and the gazelle have an equal right to life, but for the lion to preserve his life, he needs to violate the gazelle's right to life. It is a true case of a conflict of interests where for one to live, the other must die.

[EcoTribalVegan]

You're misunderstanding and perhaps unintentionally misrepresenting what I wrote. In short, I wrote that all sentient animals have basic fundamental rights such as the right to life and liberty. However, society may decide to give its members additional rights, such as the right to healthcare and education. Other societies, including non-human societies, could equally give themselves such rights if they had a concept of rights and morality (maybe they do and maybe they don't).

You were quite clear on this aspect. We both agreed with it. But you then took it to an illogical conclusion. Because of the arbitrary grounds for specism.

And other animals care more about other animals. They live more harmoneously with them. Maybe it's because of these contradictions that we're different and more destructive.

So in giving contractual rights to humans (such as the right to healthcare and education) we are going over and above what is naturally due to us. And since we're not taking anything away from other animals, but only giving ourselves additional benefits, we have every right to organize our society so.

Animals educate their young as well. They teach them what is necessary for survival. A bird teaching it's young how to fly for instance. They also nurse one another. So no contradiction so far.

But I disagree with your last statement. Because for a human to survive, it needs sustainance. The hospital that's keeping a comatose patient alive pollutes, takes up habitat space for other animals, and just keeping that person alive probably requires killing other animals (since most people are not vegan I'm sure they are fed non-vegan foods). I could be wrong though, but most hospital food doesn't seem to cater to vegans.

There is no contradiction. Let me spell it out clearly: No one has a natural right to healthcare and education. That is a contractual right. Would it be speciesist if we deny a cow the right to education? I think not. Education is not a basic/fundamental/natural right.

This is where you're wrong once again. And it's not a right anyway. Because your notions of healthcare and education are based on the civilisation premise, not on the survival premise (as in nature). Maybe that's why you don't see them as inherent rights.

Just because we can organize our own societies in a way that provides us with benefits that go over and above what is naturally due to us and other animals can't, does not deny us the right to organize our society so, provided that in doing so, we do not infringe the natural rights of others.

First off, 16 species a day go extinct as a direct result of civilisation. Most predict a catastrophic climate crisis BECAUSE of human activity. So don't give me this bullshit about how we don't infringe on the rights of others. Just because you choose to ignore the CONSEQUENCES of civilisation to support your anthropocentric views doesn't mean we all do!

I never did so. The only prerequisite for having fundamental rights is sentience. The only rights I am granting on the basis of species are not fundamental rights. The "right" to healthcare and education is not a fundamental right. It's a contractual right. The only reason I am entitled to healthcare is because I either pay taxes which go towards free healthcare, or I pay a health insurance policy which goes to my healthcare. Healthcare is not a fundamental natural right.

Umm...Your WHOLE argument has been how humans are different. You are basing your rights differently around different species. And you're right, the right to your definition of healthcare and education are NOT fundamental rights.

Depends on what rights you are speaking of. Basic rights such as the right to life and liberty are owed to any sentient being. Other rights are arbitrary and contractual "by nature".

I'm not arguing against these rights. You're the one making contradictions based on species here. I'm just showing you the folly of your argument.

That's only because you're confusing natural basic rights with contractual rights. Hierarchy has no place in my scheme.

Surely it does! And I'm not confusing basic rights with anything. I'm saying exactly what they are. It is you making rights that go above and beyond for humans so we can live "more comfortably." Just because you ignore the consequences of what you argue for doesn't mean they don't exist.

Why not? Because I'm NOT focusing on trivialities. It is you who mentioned the triviality (what if...rabbit not cow). My point was that an innocent is sacrificed instead of another.

My point is you really seem to want to sacrifice something. Please stop making strawman fallacies for MY beliefs. I've refuted them all. And no doubt in my mind will continue to refute any more of the silly hypotheticals you throw at me. And then you'll claim I'm wrong because you didn't give me all the facts...

To claim that you dislike hypotheticals is not an argument. What you're asking is for me to debate on your own terms (by not using hypotheticals). I will use hypotheticals if I believe that they demonstrate the point I wish to make. You have every right to ignore the hypotheticals if you so wish. I will not criticize your means of putting your point across. I will only say that I agree when I do agree, and say that I disagree when I don't, and give my own reasons why I don't.

To claim I'm arguing trivialities isn't an argument either. It's a cop out!

And I logically, and factually, justified my position for the stupidity of hypotheticals without concrete parameters.

And you're asking me to argue on your illogical terms. You give me a hypothetical. I refute it then you say I'm wrong because it's not what you had in mind because you didn't give me all the facts. Seriously, it's quickly becoming quite the irritant. If you want to argue like that, have fun finding people to try to explain your contradictory beliefs to. Because I'm about ready to pack it up.

So I'm a hypocrite now. Thanks.

I meant no offence, but if I were being a hypocrite, I would want to know. My goal in life is to eliminate all contradiction from my ethics/beliefs. Any other beliefs/ethics are illogical and not worthy of addressing.

Where did I claim civilisation to be our baseline? As for sacrificing animals for feeding lions, I was saying that that is wrong, since no innocent should be sacrificed on behalf of another.

It was implied when you're using the institutions of civilisation as a basis for your argument. Especially that of human's deserving more rights at the expense of other animals.

And I agree. No INNOCENT life should be sacrificed. My argument has continually been that only those who are unnecessarily violating someone elses rights (to life and not cause unnecessary harm) that the sadist's rights then become void. I mean I don't know who here wouldn't have killed a Hitler or something if they had the chance to save many more lives. That's about the only thing I can see you mistaking as for the greater good.

Actually the only justification for violating rights is if it is the only way to survive. If not, then we wouldn't be violating any rights if we stop someone from violating someone else's rights.

And if someone is about to murder someone then it is for survival. We are in agreement here.

Of course not. That's what I'm saying all along.

But it's what you were claiming my beliefs entailed...Once again, because you used a strawman fallacy for my beliefs.

Although I would add that even if the benefits were sure, sacrificing one (or many) for the sake of another would still be wrong. Humans have similar physiologies and similar susceptibilities to the same diseases, but forcing someone to act as a test subject is still wrong, even if success is guaranteed.

If it were a sure thing, what would be the point of a sacrifice?? It would assume you already KNEW the answer. The only way killing someone else to save another is in direct self-defence of someone who is already trying to violate someone else's rights.

So in a round-about way, yes it's wrong to test on someone when you already know the answer...That should be obvious...

Well...the way I would put it is that both the lion and the gazelle have an equal right to life, but for the lion to preserve his life, he needs to violate the gazelle's right to life. It is a true case of a conflict of interests where for one to live, the other must die.

This is why self-preservation is the only reason to violate another life's right to life. Different ways of saying the same thing. At least we ended on harmoneous terms...

[animalrightsmalta]

You were quite clear on this aspect. We both agreed with it. But you then took it to an illogical conclusion. Because of the arbitrary grounds for specism.

And other animals care more about other animals. They live more harmoneously with them. Maybe it's because of these contradictions that we're different and more destructive.

Again, you're misrepresenting what I said. For instance, when I say that non-human animals most probably do not understand the concept of rights and cannot organize their society as we do, I'm not saying that they do not care about other animals. I'm also not saying that organized society is necessarily beneficial to people...it all depends on how it is organized. The benefits are there for all to see (heating, clean water, safe housing etc).

Animals educate their young as well. They teach them what is necessary for survival. A bird teaching it's young how to fly for instance. They also nurse one another. So no contradiction so far.

Sure they do. However, you'll agree that what's necessary for survivial (if I am to concede you even that) is way off from the kind of education that makes life much more comfortable, safe and interesting. And when I said that education is not a natural right but a contractual right humans give themselves, I was of course talking about human education. I hope you don't believe that birds have the right to university education and that not giving them this right is speciesist!

But I disagree with your last statement. Because for a human to survive, it needs sustainance. The hospital that's keeping a comatose patient alive pollutes, takes up habitat space for other animals, and just keeping that person alive probably requires killing other animals (since most people are not vegan I'm sure they are fed non-vegan foods). I could be wrong though, but most hospital food doesn't seem to cater to vegans.

I must agree with you on the food issue...hospitals should obviously provide only vegan food. As for the rest, that hospitals may pollute is no sufficient reason for us not to build hospitals. We have as much right to seek our own survival in the best way we can as much as other animals do. If other animals had the ability to build hospitals, they would. Being realistic is not being speciesist.

There is no contradiction. Let me spell it out clearly: No one has a natural right to healthcare and education. That is a contractual right. Would it be speciesist if we deny a cow the right to education? I think not. Education is not a basic/fundamental/natural right.

This is where you're wrong once again. And it's not a right anyway. Because your notions of healthcare and education are based on the civilisation premise, not on the survival premise (as in nature). Maybe that's why you don't see them as inherent rights.

So you're saying (education and healthcare) is not a rights anyway...and then you question me on not seeing them as inherent rights? If they are not rights they cannot be inherent rights. As for healthcare and education, most of it is done for survival, some of it for a well functioning society, and some for personal knowledge and satisfaction. But again, the provision of services by others is not a natural right. It's a contractual right. Nobody naturally owes me anything except the right to my life and liberty. The rest is all contractual, depending on the kind of society I live in.

First off, 16 species a day go extinct as a direct result of civilisation. Most predict a catastrophic climate crisis BECAUSE of human activity. So don't give me this bullshit about how we don't infringe on the rights of others. Just because you choose to ignore the CONSEQUENCES of civilisation to support your anthropocentric views doesn't mean we all do!

I'm not saying we live in an ideal civilization, and the way I see it, our civilization is very destructive, and if you weigh the costs and benefits, even if we were to disregard other animals, the scale probably tips to higher costs than benefits. You tell me "so don't give me this bullshit about how we don't infringe on the rights of others". This makes me think that you're either deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying, or you don't understand simple English. When I say that we have the right to organize our society provided that we do not harm others, this does not necessarily mean that this is what we're actually doing. It actually means that if by what we do we are directly harming others, we should stop doing those activities, unless those activities are necessary for our survival.

Umm...Your WHOLE argument has been how humans are different. You are basing your rights differently around different species. And you're right, the right to your definition of healthcare and education are NOT fundamental rights.

Of course humans are different, like cows are different from ants, rabbits from fishes etc. Basic rights, like the right to life and liberty are shared by all species. Other contractual "rights" are not, since they depend on the capacities and the will of individuals comprising each species. If you fail to understand this, further discussion is futile.

Depends on what rights you are speaking of. Basic rights such as the right to life and liberty are owed to any sentient being. Other rights are arbitrary and contractual "by nature".

I'm not arguing against these rights. You're the one making contradictions based on species here. I'm just showing you the folly of your argument.

Ok, so fishes have the right to university education.

That's only because you're confusing natural basic rights with contractual rights. Hierarchy has no place in my scheme.

Surely it does! And I'm not confusing basic rights with anything. I'm saying exactly what they are. It is you making rights that go above and beyond for humans so we can live "more comfortably." Just because you ignore the consequences of what you argue for doesn't mean they don't exist.

Again, I said that we have the right to organize our own society the way we deem fit, provided we do not harm others in the process. What's so hard to understand about this?

Why not? Because I'm NOT focusing on trivialities. It is you who mentioned the triviality (what if...rabbit not cow). My point was that an innocent is sacrificed instead of another.

My point is you really seem to want to sacrifice something.

What the f**k!!! I really want to sacrifice something?!?! Is this what you understand when I say that an innocent should never be sacrificed for the sake of another?!?!

Please stop making strawman fallacies for MY beliefs. I've refuted them all. And no doubt in my mind will continue to refute any more of the silly hypotheticals you throw at me. And then you'll claim I'm wrong because you didn't give me all the facts...

Talk of strawman fallacies...you say I want to sacrifice someone when I say exactly the opposite.

To claim that you dislike hypotheticals is not an argument. What you're asking is for me to debate on your own terms (by not using hypotheticals). I will use hypotheticals if I believe that they demonstrate the point I wish to make. You have every right to ignore the hypotheticals if you so wish. I will not criticize your means of putting your point across. I will only say that I agree when I do agree, and say that I disagree when I don't, and give my own reasons why I don't.

To claim I'm arguing trivialities isn't an argument either. It's a cop out!

Not unless you ARE arguing trivialities. I'll let others judge.

And I logically, and factually, justified my position for the stupidity of hypotheticals without concrete parameters.

And you're asking me to argue on your illogical terms. You give me a hypothetical. I refute it then you say I'm wrong because it's not what you had in mind because you didn't give me all the facts. Seriously, it's quickly becoming quite the irritant. If you want to argue like that, have fun finding people to try to explain your contradictory beliefs to. Because I'm about ready to pack it up.

You might as well do. I would rather debate with people who follow logic and understand the language.

So I'm a hypocrite now. Thanks.

I meant no offence, but if I were being a hypocrite, I would want to know. My goal in life is to eliminate all contradiction from my ethics/beliefs. Any other beliefs/ethics are illogical and not worthy of addressing.

Well, I'm not a hypocrite, and neither are you. The way I see it, you want to cling to your version of utilitarian at all costs, even if it means you have to misrepresent others like you're doing to me.

Where did I claim civilisation to be our baseline? As for sacrificing animals for feeding lions, I was saying that that is wrong, since no innocent should be sacrificed on behalf of another.

It was implied when you're using the institutions of civilisation as a basis for your argument. Especially that of human's deserving more rights at the expense of other animals.

Incredible! Where did I use civilization as a basis for natural rights? Where did I say humans deserve more rights at the expense of other animals. I actually said the opposite. Cut out your crappy lies please.

And I agree. No INNOCENT life should be sacrificed. My argument has continually been that only those who are unnecessarily violating someone elses rights (to life and not cause unnecessary harm) that the sadist's rights then become void. I mean I don't know who here wouldn't have killed a Hitler or something if they had the chance to save many more lives. That's about the only thing I can see you mistaking as for the greater good.

Killing Hitler, if it was the only way possible to stop him, would not have been acceptable for the "greater good". It would have been acceptable only if it was the only way to stop him from violating the rights of others.

Actually the only justification for violating rights is if it is the only way to survive. If not, then we wouldn't be violating any rights if we stop someone from violating someone else's rights.

And if someone is about to murder someone then it is for survival. We are in agreement here.

That's a refreshing break.

Of course not. That's what I'm saying all along.

But it's what you were claiming my beliefs entailed...Once again, because you used a strawman fallacy for my beliefs.

And what was the strawman fallacy in this case? Stop throwing "strawman" around without justifying your use of the word with respect to what I said.

Although I would add that even if the benefits were sure, sacrificing one (or many) for the sake of another would still be wrong. Humans have similar physiologies and similar susceptibilities to the same diseases, but forcing someone to act as a test subject is still wrong, even if success is guaranteed.

If it were a sure thing, what would be the point of a sacrifice?? It would assume you already KNEW the answer.

Not necessarily. Let's give you a simple example. Suppose we're trying out a medicinal substance to see whether it kills. We can be sure that we will get the correct answer without knowing the outcome beforehand. The test subject either lives or dies. We did not know the answer beforehand but we were certain that we would get the correct answer. There would be a point to the sacrifice. However, (and please don't misrepresent me...read carefully), we HAVE NO RIGHT to sacrifice an innocent for the sake of another, regardless of the benefits.

The only way killing someone else to save another is in direct self-defence of someone who is already trying to violate someone else's rights.

Exactly.

So in a round-about way, yes it's wrong to test on someone when you already know the answer...That should be obvious...

It's still wrong to test on someone when you don't already know the answer, but you're sure of obtaining the right answer. I repeat: Suppose we're trying out a medicinal substance to see whether it kills. We can be sure that we will get the correct answer without knowing the outcome beforehand. The test subject either lives or dies. We did not know the answer beforehand but we were certain that we would get the correct answer. There would be a point to the sacrifice. However, (and please don't misrepresent me...read carefully), we HAVE NO RIGHT to sacrifice an innocent for the sake of another, regardless of the benefits.

Well...the way I would put it is that both the lion and the gazelle have an equal right to life, but for the lion to preserve his life, he needs to violate the gazelle's right to life. It is a true case of a conflict of interests where for one to live, the other must die.

This is why self-preservation is the only reason to violate another life's right to life. Different ways of saying the same thing. At least we ended on harmoneous terms...

I sure hope so, and I am seriously thinking of ending the debate in this way. To put it mildly, there seems to be some problem with our communication, making us read the opposite of what the other said.