Returning to the OP:
“
Originally Posted by MZ3Boy84
What is your opinion on people becoming vegetarian/vegan because they take an active against animal cruelty? Is it ignorant in your opinion or logical?
I've considered it myself, but haven't made a commitment yet.
”
However, the title of the thread reads: Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights
Not the same thing.
In response to the post itself: Of course it's logical -- why not? Factory farming is cruel and I'm not sure that anyone has really contested that. To argue that animals of prey would meet a similar fate, and perhaps at an earlier stage in the wild is irrelevant; moreover, it suggests a profound ignorance of the actual conditions of factory farming. People of hunter-gatherer societies live shorter lives and are prone to certain ailments that cannot be adequately treated or addressed than people of most industrialized societies: is it somehow more cruel to allow them to continue with their hunter/gatherer ways? Ought we compel them to assimilate within our industrialized societies?
What is at stake here, and the reason that the title of the thread does not correlate with the original post, is the consideration of interests -- the question of rights is of a whole different species. I'm not partial to the utilitarian notion of this expression, but to each their own (yeah, one might consider that a utilitarian perspective, but it's not necessarily so); rather, I consider the injurious implications of an act and whether they can be avoided or lessened: ought one willfully exert undue harm to another with the knowledge that it's not absolutely necessary?
Refraining from needlessly injurious behavior does not equate to according "rights" to another or considering their "rights." The question of "animal rights" typically pertains to "legal rights" as opposed to "natural rights," unless one defines "natural rights" in such a way as to imply as sort of "social contract" which I discuss below.
"Natural rights," in one sense, exist irrespective of laws, societal customs, etc. A natural right is essentially the freedom to act for one's own preservation -- freedom from certain things does not factor into this definition. It is essentially impossible to deny one rights in this sense: if I choose to bash your head in and you consequently die as a result, you still have (had) your "natural right," as simply the very fact that you lived attests to your acting in self-preservation -- I did not deny you this right (nor can I), as this right does not give your freedom from anything.
In another sense -- and this approaches "legal rights" -- "natural rights" afford one the freedom to act towards one's own preservation so long as in doing so one does not infringe upon another's freedom to act toward their own preservation. This is dependent upon a sort of "social contract," or agreement of reciprocity, which is dependent upon a mutual acknowledgement of the other's entitlements: the very existence of such rights is wholly relational and fluid. The relationship is one of possessiveness in that those accorded such rights are as "one's own." Obviously, this is gonna require some explanation. From my perspective (or your's or anyone's), only my dog, my family, my friends, my countryfolk, etc. are accorded these rights; accordingly, those who do not recognize and acknowledge my entitlements are not "mine" and do not possess these rights (there are limitiations, as when one says something like "my enemy" or when the being in question is a stranger who bears no ill will, but the rule of "possessiveness" does generally suffice).
So how does this pertain to non-human animals? The same as it does to humans: in certain contexts one accords rights to the other, in others one does not -- and vice versa. Does my dog possess rights? Certainly: she acknowledges my entitlements and I hers -- we have entered a moral relationship in which she respects me enough to not bite me, and I respect her enough to not hit her (although even if I didn't respect her, I wouldn't hit her -- and that pertains to the matter of interests above). Does my neighbor? Yes. Do my mutually respectful countryfolk? Yes. Do horses, camels, and other animals educated in and respectful of one-another's mores? Yes. Likewise for all of the above in reverse -- that is, do I from the perspective of the dog, neighbor, countryfolk, horse, etc.
Alternately: Does a lion have rights from my (our) perspective? Probably not, unless she has been educated in my (our) mores; however, the absence of rights does not negate the value of considering the lion's own interests. Do we have rights from the lion's perspective? Again, probably not. Does the enemy combatant have rights? Not according to the definition two paragraphs up. How about a rapist, murderer, or child molester? No. Does that asshole down the road who harasses me and treats people like shit, either by virtue of cognitive defect or conscious moral defiance? Absolutely NOT. Fuck him. He doesn't acknowledge my rights and I don't acknowledge his.
Obviously, there's a lot of grey area: infants, the severely retarded, humans and non-humans who had or have the potential to acknowledge such things. Some might argue that they have rights by virtue of potential, others might suggest they lack rights but nevertheless warrant consideration of their interests.
"Legal rights" are the legislative extension of the latter definition of "natural rights" (which originated with Hobbes, I believe). I'm ambivalent about the whole notion of legal rights as I consider the State to be the construct and product of the most wretched, idiotic, and worthless individuals in the history of the world. Consequently, I have little to offer regarding "legal rights."
Anyhooooo, I just figured this topic needed a proper discussion of what exactly rights are and I don't profess to be an authority on rights.
