To: smoothsailing; Fzob
Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice. In principle, I agree with the article's premise.
We do slide down a little bit of a slippery slope when the concept of "rights" is tied to being capable of reason and choice.
The mentally ill, children, are not able to meet the criteria.
Do they drop down to the level of the animal???
Objective viewpoints often follow down a narrow path.
4 posted on
06/02/2005 7:55:01 PM PDT by
Popman
("I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." Patrick Henry)
To: Popman
I see your point, and it is well taken.
We have a responsibility,of course,to reason well,and choose wisely.A responsibility at which PETA fails miserably.
5 posted on
06/02/2005 8:06:54 PM PDT by
smoothsailing
(Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend/ inside a dog, it's too dark to read.__Groucho Marx)
To: Popman
The confusion comes in with PETA hijacking the term 'rights'. The correct concept should be animal welfare.
7 posted on
06/02/2005 8:12:45 PM PDT by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
To: Popman
I think by capable he means that as a species we ideally can reason regardless of the abnormalities within the species. Animals under no circumstance can achieve reasoning which is not an abnormality but the norm, so they are NEVER capable. But frankly the argument is not that great because animals can choose... food, who they want attention from, etc... It has more to do with the soul and lack thereof.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson