Graeme M wrote: ↑Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:55 pm
Rights are a means of protecting interests. What this means is that we have a way of constraining relations between people to ensure that person A doesn't prevent person B's interests. Of course, it depends on A and B agreeing to this; that is why we have laws and why we worry about human rights violations. In the case of other species, we are talking about a one-way relationship because other species cannot enter into any kind of agreement. So in this case "rights" is a shorthand for "duties". We are talking only about what ethical duties we have to other species in order to protect their interests insofar as our actions are concerned.
As to which species, for the sake of discussion I'd leave that open. The question is whether it's reasonable to extend rights to other species. In my post, I note that for now, we don't do this. Animal Rights activists seek to have that changed. "Vegans" are people who choose to
behave as though these rights have been awarded.
The main purpose of my post is to explain why people might choose to adopt vegan ethics and why that is consistent with everyday ethical behaviour. I do not think it is possible to criticise this explanation. Veganism is a sensible, rational and defensible strategy aligned with everyday ethics.
My first reaction is that I think rights is the wrong way to go to make this argument. I think compassion or empathy for other life forms is much better approach.
I do think a rights based argument could be improved. Some of the parts of what I quoted in my previous post seem to indicate we are in fact dealing with creatures that can have a two way street with us. That they have a right to liberty, for example. That they have a right to not be used as a commodity. I am a fairly priviledged human, given my educational background and the skills I have acquired. They are not great skills, but so far I have managed to put food on the table and the like. But I am definitely treated as commodity. If I do not provide products or services, regardless of whether my doing this remotely suits me, I will have survival issues. And my liberty is infringed in a variety of ways, mainly in the work world and because of working. And I'm not an extremely fussy person. I've taken and even felt fine in jobs that most would consider below my educational background. I don't quite think like that. At the same time, I have had to put up with psychotic bosses and then even in what are considered decent working situations, I have had to put up with yes, being treated as a commodity, and had to do things that I would not want to do if I didn't have to keep money coming in. One long stretch I had to put up with much more than usual because a family member had a life threatening disease. Commodities are things that can be bought and sold. Companies have told me and others to move within the country or lose the work. And then the very process of selling my time and labor and dignity and health for money means that I must treat myself as a commodity.
But here we are talking about the liberty and not being treated as a commodity of other species. That seems to me to be putting them on a par with me.
We do, often, grant rights to unequals, like children. But then children tend not to have anything like the right to liberty that adults have. They do have the right to not be formally treated as commodities. You can't sell your kids, at least not openly in 'the West'. But they don't have the right to much control over their time and activities, even socially. Most parents do allow them some degree of freedom, but they have no right to it.
Most vegans cannot stop themselves from restricting, directly or indirectly, the freedoms and interests of animals. At least, veganism itself is far from enough. You'd have to not use oil or any other product that leads to environmental destruction, and wind power would be out also. You would really have to live simply, in a way that most vegans are not capable of. You can certainly try to minimize harm, but the harm most Westerners cause to animals and certainly limiting animal freedom and blocking animal interests, is only partly to do with what one eats and wears.
I would say, of course being a vegan can be a rational choice. I wouldn't argue that they are being irrational or immoral for deciding to eat as a vegan. I did once, for a few years. I am sure some people think they are wrong, morally. But I think most are reacting to vegans judgments that non-vegans are immoral, rather than whether vegans themselves are being immoral for not eating animal products. And probably even the nastiest critics of veganism would think vegans had the right to not eat animal products.
I wish everyday ethics regarding humans was how you wish to extend it to animals, but that's not what I experience.
Oh, and yes, my life is much better than some cow on a factory farm. My point is more that those rights are at a level where we do not manage with humans. They are rights where we generally do expect responsibilities and when children reach a certain level where they have rights to freedom and we must protect and not inhibit their interests, they also have duties themselves.
