141–144 of 144 posts
I seem to remember back in the 70s and early 80s, cigarette butts being everywhere was a problem, then for awhile, they disappeared, like smokers got trained not to throw them on the ground. But lately, they seem to be back, like new smokers came up without remembering what it was like in the 70s and 80s, and they just throw them on the ground again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we have pretty clearly established that some animals have right. We may have established that most animals have rights, I'm not sure. Try setting fire to a horse and see the legal results. Try making a species go extinct, even pests. So, there are some rights - and arguments for even stronger rights.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is clearly established. It most certainly is not. It sounds to me like you are confusing rights with moral obligations in respect to animals. It is a mistake to think that an absence of rights is an absence of moral duties, not to, but in respect to animals.
I hunt and fish, so I'm not a granola munching hippy. Yet, animals still have rights. I can hunt and kill a deer. I can't hunt and kill a deer by intentionally causing excessive pain. There are laws against that. Those laws are the animal's rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't work so well for alcohol, drugs, or prostitution unfortunately. But at least I guess it would stop people smoking in public.
> Didn't work so well for alcohol, drugs, or prostitution unfortunately. I'm pretty sure it will work out once the surveillance methods are more advanced and ubiquitous. And no, I don't think it's a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is clearly established. It most certainly is not. It sounds to me like you are confusing rights with moral obligations in respect to animals. It is a mistake to think that an absence of rights is an absence of moral duties, not to, but in respect to animals.
Those obligations we have are their rights. Really, go set fire to a horse and see what the courts do to you. The courts punish you because the animal had a right to not suffer and you'd have violated them. I hunt and fish, so I'm not a granola munching hippy. Yet, animals still have rights. I can hunt and kill a deer. I can't hunt and kill a deer by intentionally causing excessive pain. There are laws against that.…
I didn't say we have obligations (or really duties) _to_ animals but _in respect to_ animals. This is an important distinction.
Animals do not have a right not to suffer, but it is immoral to be cruel toward them. I can, legitimately, cause suffering in an animal if it is an unfortunate effect of, say, acting for an appropriately commensurate human good. I cannot morally do the same to a human being.