On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:21:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >, Derek > wrote:
>
>> They held rights the same moment moral agents existed
>> to observe them. Obviously, they don't hold rights against
>> each other because a right can only be held against a
>> moral agent rather than a moral patient.
>
>Since, I did respond and in fairness, I think the onus is on you to make
>your case since it was you who made assertions in the positive. To
>present Hume's opinion (appeal to authority) and that you use "well
>understood" (appeal to popularity) is not a good reason to simply accept
>the argument.

If you'd left my reasons for including Hume without
snipping them away you would have let the reader
see that, far from appealing to authority to win support
for my position, I included him because his view does
seem to represent "my position to some degree, and
being that Hume's position is well known and generally
understood, I thought it fitting to bring it here to explain
my own position more clearly to you."

>I don't consider animals to have rights. I recognize that the human laws
>in some jurisdictions provide some protections to some animals in some
>circumstances. This is quite different than to make any categorical
>statement of rights or rights belonging to animals.

If you'd left my post intact without snipping it all away
you would have let the reader note that, "I don't get
involved with legal codes when discussing moral rights.
Laws don't codify whether a moral right exists."

>Can you establish your case that there is a moral right for animals not
>to be killed. Can you be specific if your perspective is subjective or
>absolute in its application.

Something 'good' can only be regarded as good if it is
desirable for its own sake rather than for the sake of
some other good, so, if killing billions of animals is good
then it must be desirable for itself rather than for the
sake of some other good. As I see it, the good from
killing animals is for the sake of another good, your good,
and if we are to remain ethical we cannot continue killing
because it clearly isn't good for its own sake.