| |
|
written in response to this post in another thread:
Well, "rights" as a concept are faulty if one is not able to exercise them oneself. The traditional definition of rights is freedom from interference by third parties in one's activities.
Actually, this isn't right. One can make a distinction between positive and negative rights, say, and deny that the former are rights at all but this isn't "traditional". I'd go further and argue that the distinction between negative and positive rights is illusory. Ultimately, any right which expresses a freedom from interference automatically restricts the freedom of action of those who would deny one that freedom. Also, given that this is in reference to animal rights, we should note that an animal is perfectly capable of living without being experimented on, as long as humans do not experiment on them. This would be a negative right (if one were to accept it as a right), by any reasonable analysis.
OK, in short my problem is that I feel that "animal rights" as a concept is a perversion of language
Fair enough, though in my view the shoe is on the other foot. If I've understood you correctly, you wouldn't accept many of the provisions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as expressing rights at all. For example,
Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law, ...
Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality....Article 16 (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution....Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
There are lots more. In fact, if one doesn't accept that "No [animal] shall be subjected to torture or to cruel or degrading treatment or punishment" can't constitute a right, then the UDHR probably articulates very few rights at all. But then, I'd ask, who is perverting language?
Your use of the term torture is a bit suspect. Torture of animals suggests, to me at least, random acts of violence perpetrated to no end, tautologically speaking. Sticking on "of little benefit" to the end twists the meaning to include testing on animals and then people who support animal testing (such as myself) are left attempting to defend "torture" in circumstances when the benefits outweigh the negatives.
This is a piece of reworking language on the scale of the "pro-life" lobby – it forces people to defend a position that is indefensible and not actually the one that they hold
Not my intention at all. All I'm trying to establish is that the unconditional use of animals isn't widely accepted. The use of animals for cosmetic testing, which you mention yourself, for example. And if you ask any respectable scientist who experiments on animals, they will tell you that ethical guidelines prohibit certain uses. I'm arguing that the move to marginalise the opinions of the animal rights lobby doesn't really hold water since a concern for animal welfare is actually quite well accepted, even in the domain of medical research.
Moreover, is there not a position thus: no to testing for cosmetics, yes for testing for cancer drugs?
And, ultimately, is medical and scientific progress not more important than guinea pigs?
Thats begging the question, I think. Sure, you can decide that testing for cancer drugs is an overwhelming good which entirely outweighs the concerns regarding animal welfare. Myself, I don't think it is that clear. |
|
|
