Do seals have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Alternatively: Do libertarian seals dream of natural rights?

DISCLAIMER: This is a serious thread. Though I was playing silly buggers when I created it, I have come to realise that the problem here is more important to me than I'd initially thought. So serious input more appreciated than non-serious input :o


Loki's been trying to get me to play this game y'all are playing, and he almost succeeded but then I learned that a key part of the game is the purchasing of seals for the purpose (according to Loki :o) of clubbing. I was put off by this notion, but then I had to stop and think for a moment, because I suddenly realised I wasn't entirely sure why I found the idea of buying seals for clubbing to be objectionable. After a moment's thought I began to suspect that my discomfort arose from the implication that seals do not have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and never mind property!

Of course, the reality of this has long been known and I myself have supported that reality many times (most recently when I defended abortion while eating meat).

But is it sufficient simply to assert that natural rights are exclusive to "people" and cannot be held by seals? How convenient that would be, but also somewhat despicable by virtue of making the right to fundamental rights entirely conventional and somewhat arbitrary.

I admit I'll most likely continue to consume animals--not seals--but I think this puzzle will bother me for a while. Can any of you help? I look forward esp. to hearing from any vegetarian libertarians but all takes are welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

<snip>
I admit I'll most likely continue to consume animals--not seals--but I think this puzzle will bother me for a while. Can any of you help? I look forward esp. to hearing from any vegetarian libertarians but all takes are welcome.

---

This reminds me of conversations I've had with my militant vegan animal rights zero population growth sister, who also keeps dogs as domestic pets in cages and on leashes. She also volunteers for dog-rescue missions, and refers to that as "temporary adoptions", while she trains (domesticates) feral or neglected dogs.

When things get really "good" in our discussion, she tires of it all and simply says, "Everyone draws their own line at different places. Even if that comes with some inconsistencies that look like hypocrisy". Well, duh?

She tried to feed her "foster" dogs as vegetarians, until the vet told her they needed animal protein. (Because dogs are related to omnivore wolves.) She used to expend tons of energy keeping her free range chickens separated from the dogs. But the chickens were eventually eaten by foxes, partly because the dogs couldn't guard the hen house. Her solution was to stop raising free-range chickens, and gave up eating eggs.

The whole Moderation in Everything got lost in her translation. Now, she drives several miles (in her hybrid car) to buy legumes, lentils, soybeans, tofu, etc. that she can't grow on her own. And to buy dog food. :eek: It's a crazy combination of behaviors that I don't really understand, and since we're "family" it's even harder to understand. I admire her intentions and efforts, even if they don't make sense to me.

Anyway, what humans are killing seals, and why? That's probably your root question that seeks an answer. No one would blame fellow ocean creatures for killing or eating seals, even BABY seals. That's just how animal life works: prey includes babies, chicks, eggs. It's another thing entirely to ask why humans are clubbing baby seals.

No.

I like the spirit of your question Minx, but it's really important to ask the key questions first, before tackling the messy ones. What I mean is your question should be what qualities entitle an object to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Once that question is answered we simply need to check does a seal meet that definition if yes then yes, if no then no.

I think though the question will hinge on whether the object is alive or not (not under the scientific defintion of being able to reproduce), but perhaps alive is more so the quality to be aware of your own life conciously, and perhaps even then a certain level of conciousness is perhaps required, the something that seperates us from rocks, or even computers, and perhaps many animals.


If some animals do possess this quality then we should morally question the justification of not only killing them, but mistreating them in general. Simply because a creature is of a different species than us doesn't mean automatically is fair game to kill, we need to be consistent in our rules. If one wants to argue well animals may be concious like humans, but they are dumber than us, then one can ask is it okay to kill dumb humans, do they have to breach a certain IQ before they're entitled to rights? If not we shouldn't have these double standards.

Perhaps we all shouldn't be killing certain animals and eating them. It may be no different from raising and killing humans for food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I admit I'll most likely continue to consume animals--not seals--but I think this puzzle will bother me for a while. Can any of you help? I look forward esp. to hearing from any vegetarian libertarians but all takes are welcome.

---

I'm admittedly not familiar with the game in question, but I have several assumptions about the game that may or may not be true. First, I assume this game involves combat, and that the combat occurs between sentient if not intelligent species. If that is true, I can't help but wonder why the fictionalized warfare, (which I assume can also impact noncombatants) less objectionable than harvesting resources?

These assumptions may or may not be accurate, so feel free to disregard as needed.

Animal rights? Under human legislation? Yeah, so animals will go to a human court to appeal for their rights...
Why should animals to abide to human laws in the first place?
They say animals are inferior and do not deserve rights because they do not talk and do not have hands. Disabled people do not have those either...

I think it is more about the pain the seals suffer, which is real...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ar81

Animal rights? Under human legislation? Yeah, so animals will go to a human court to appeal for their rights...
Why should animals to abide to human laws in the first place?
They say animals are inferior and do not deserve rights because they do not talk and do not have hands. Disabled people do not have those either...

---

Could this thought process be linked to the WTF thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'm admittedly not familiar with the game in question, but I have several assumptions about the game that may or may not be true. First, I assume this game involves combat, and that the combat occurs between sentient if not intelligent species. If that is true, I can't help but wonder why the fictionalized warfare, (which I assume can also impact noncombatants) less objectionable than harvesting resources?

These assumptions may or may not be accurate, so feel free to disregard as needed.

---

The game is just a proxy, the question applies to the real world where seals are clubbed to death and where I recently ate a pig who was born and raised in slavery before he was murdered!!

Unless of course he did not have any natural right to life, liberty etc. In that case he was just born and raised and then... transformed :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

<snip>

---

I'm with you on this. In the past I've used many jury-rigged arguments but now I am left wondering how any of them really can be said to work, to be solid from the pov. of the Alpha and the Upsilon.

After seeing Prometheus I can't help but wonder if androids would have natural rights. Would they? Should they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

The game is just a proxy, the question applies to the real world where seals are clubbed to death and where I recently ate a pig who was born and raised in slavery before he was murdered!!

Unless of course he did not have any natural right to life, liberty etc. In that case he was just born and raised and then... transformed :o

---

Well, you'd have to start by differentiating "killing" from "murder".

Very loosely defined, "unlawful killing", but the question is: which laws apply?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Very loosely defined, "unlawful killing", but the question is: which laws apply?

---

Human laws. I doubt there are mama seals crying that humans "unlawfully killed" their baby seals....any more than they cry about a killer whale "murdering" their babies.

But now we'll have to meld this thread with your other one http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...l=1#post115764

At least when it comes to Human Laws and definitions of killing/murder. There's obviously no universal consensus, not even among "civilized first world nations" that operate on democracy or Rule of Law.

Example 1: capital punishment, the Death Penalty, what is Cruel or Unusual punishment for crimes (like murder), life sentence without parole (death by imprisonment vs death by injection)....Juvenile vs Adult penal codes.

Example 2: 'Personhood Amendments' meant to define life @ conception, embryos as people, some birth control as abortifacients, and abortion as murder.

Example 3: End of Life dictates (see Quinlan, Schiavo, Kervorkian, "Death Panels"), suicide/assisted-suicide, hospice, euthanasia, omission vs commission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Human laws. I doubt there are mama seals crying that humans "unlawfully killed" their baby seals....any more than they cry about a killer whale "murdering" their babies.

---

So killing seals is wrong only when seals cry?

:haha: No, silly. Just that the wild animal world doesn't make distinctions between killing or murder, lawful or unlawful. That's a human moral construct that evolves over time.


minx, your two threads are great conversation starters :up: but appetizers eventually lead to a main course. I'm confused about the directional intent, and would appreciate a hint. Before I go on about things like my vegan sister who won't kill a spider or wasp, but would kill a tick, or take meds to kill bacteria....just as a Buddhist might....

*substitute a fish, reptile, or insect for seals. Seals appeal to our human emotions, and remind us of mammalian pups, puppy dogs, domesticated pets and "babies". Western culture shuns killing cat, dog, horse, hamster or guinea pig (especially as food source), even though it's common in other places.

Do fish, crustaceans, krill, or reptiles have the "right to life"? What about the insects that live on plant life, or the parasitic omnivores? I mean, after a while it becomes comical when trying to re-plot the World Order of Life, according to human moralities. We have broad-spectrum Ab that kill "normal human flora", foods impregnated with Ab, millions of people buying meds to fight the side effects, marketing of probiotics, fancy yogurts with "live" cultures to restore natural balance....and activists in every sphere. Even cancer chemotherapy used to use a scorched earth approach, until chemo started killing patients before cancer did. :eek: