asleep on a shoulder that i've never met

ok. here's a good start. read this article at the discovery institute's website, here's the address... http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4154&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20Article&callingPage=discoMainPage

sadly you'll have to cut and paste that...since i haven't figured the whole link thing out yet. i'll summarize as i go though.

the article itself is about the michael vick incident. however, it attempts to explain why we are so upset by it. as a friend of mine said, "i hate dogs, and even i know that's wrong." i'm motivated to write about this article for two reasons, one being that i disagree with its reasoning, and second i object to the idea that human beings are creatures of special creation or of a higher nature. actually there's a third, their argument relies on some questionable assumptions.

1. "But few are asking why, exactly, we are so upset. For example, do we contend that the dogs acted wrongly by fighting each other to the death? Of course not. Only human beings have the capacity to understand right from wrong."
--here is a quiet assumption, that is important later in their argument. its a rhetorical trick. immediately we are assuming that human beings can make a distinction between right and wrong. now, i won't argue that human beings do not make distinctions between actions, but i think that it is difficult to claim that animals do not do the same, and it can be argued that most human beings make the distinction between right and wrong for the same reason that animals do. human beings are socialized and trained, i have yet to be convinced that there is an innate moral sense. if there is, it is the desire to have a place in the world, which is a result of our social nature. our dogs have the same sense of right and wrong as a child, displaying guilt and occassionally even weight cost and benefit of breaking the rules. now, this may just be imparting human conceptions onto animals; however, i think that one can argue strongly that social animals respond to these stimuli. their point in starting at this point is to end closer to their ultimate point, that we are creatures of special creation with special responsibilities.

2. "Then are we furious because, as animal-rights activists would have it, the victimized dogs had a "right" not to be treated in such a brutal fashion? No. Animals don't have rights. They can't even understand the concept."
--you do not have to understand rights to have them, this isn't in the definition of rights. otherwise, mentally ill and handicapped individuals would not have rights, by definition. this argument fails.

3. "Indeed, for rights to be true rights, they must apply universally."
--also, this is not in the definition of rights. it is for some, but not for others. for instance, you do not have a universal right to life or to free speech. rights are defined by the duties that they impose. you have the duty not to take anyone's life unlawfully and the duty not to commit slander. but technically, the duty not to take life, and the right to life, do not apply universally. you have the right to kill the other side in a war, or to act in self defense. you also have freedom of speech, but it is not universal, it is limited in scope by truth (slander) and obscenity laws.

4. "Yet anyone seriously asserting that a lion violated a zebra's right to life by hunting it down would be laughed out of town."
--this is a favorite argument of the religious right, and groups such as the discovery institute. this is an inappropriate metaphor. no one would argue either that a lion violated a person's right to life by hunting them down. this statement sounds compelling, but demonstrates nothing. it does not prove that there is no right to life for animals, or that animals do not have rights, only that lions have no duty to protect the lives of zebra's, or humans, for that matter.

5. "By treating helpless animals as if their pain did not matter, by engaging in such blatant cruelty, they not only inflicted inexcusable suffering and terror upon helpless, sentient beings, but, even worse, they besmirched the higher nature and noble calling of the human race."
--i completely agree with this sentiment up until the higher nature part. indeed, we do have a noble calling, that we are largely ignoring in many ways.

ultimately, i agree with the sentiment of this piece, that causing suffering on another living thing for entertainment is wrong. but i do not think that animals should not, or do not, have rights. i would argue that all living things should have rights as much as is tenable. the authors are right that human beings can recognize suffering and empathize, although i contend with the statement that animals do not recognize suffering either. to an extent they do, especially the social animals. i have seen enough animals mourn and respond to the suffering of others that i think that it may well be a rebuttable presumption that animals are not that aware of other creatures. but i do believe that human beings, as creatures capable of rationalizing and constructing moral visions have a unique responsibility to mitigate suffering wherever possible. we have philosophy, religion, and socialization to construct and communicate a moral vision.

but none of these positions require that human beings are products of special creation or of a higher worth than the lives of animals. the suffering of all creatures at our hands should be restricted as much as is possible.

btw...later i will discuss why i think that eating is an argument against design and god.

thank you for your time.