Hal Finney wrote:
>Speaking of "animal rights" lumps all animals together, but in fact there
>are many differences among animals. Not all animals eat others, for
True, but I nonetheless argue that almost none respect human rights in any
meaningful way, nor could they.
>It also suggests that there are only two cases, animals with full human
>rights and animals with none. Actually it would make more sense to
>propose that animals should have some rights. Most states protect
>animals against cruelty, for example, while still allowing them to be
What about Moeller's bug example? What makes it okay to, say, poison ants?
>Some humans, such as children and the mentally disabled, don't respect
>property rights and are not able to commit to contracts, but we do accord
>them limited rights. So this ability in itself does not seem to be the
>basis on which we draw the line.
As I've already said, we SHOULD afford them rights if we gain utility from
doing so. I would say that this is definitely true in the case of
children, and is usually true for the developmentally disabled. Much of
their care is performed by voluntary legal guardians and/or non-profit
organizations; although there is a lot of government money going to asylums
and other such systems, much of this could be covered privately (and
covered better) if we weren't paying for it with taxes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO LIVE-