Morality/Ethics- Should the Great Apes be accorded similar rights to humans?

[ComradeMan]

Some facts:-

There is about 0.6% genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees
http://www.greatapeproject.org/en-US/primatas/Chipanze
97.5% correspondence between humans and gorillas
http://www.greatapeproject.org/en-US/primatas/Gorilas
96.3% correspondence between humans and orangutangs
http://www.greatapeproject.org/en-US/primatas/Orangotangos
The so-called great apes also show many behaviours and characteristics once thought to be definitive of humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ape_Project
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1031
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/26/humanrights.animalwelfare
http://www.greatapeproject.org/en-US

[Kamos]

There is a ~1% of genetic difference between humans and dolphins, AFAIK. What does that have to do with anything?

[ComradeMan]

There is a ~1% of genetic difference between humans and dolphins, AFAIK. What does that have to do with anything?

I'm not sure how accurate that is- do you have a source?

But the genetic argument is not the only argument- however there is of course the argument that we are all as living beings related and so one could use that as a moral reason to try to do less environmental harm. In the case of the Great Apes however we are dealing with our nearest and dearest relatives....

[Ocean Seal]

Not really. What would they do with the abstract rights that humans have? That isn't to say that I don't support environmental conservation, but allotting similar rights to similar animals doesn't seem to serve a purpose.

[ComradeMan]

Not really. What would they do with the abstract rights that humans have? That isn't to say that I don't support environmental conservation, but allotting similar rights to similar animals doesn't seem to serve a purpose.

Okay... What's your take on the Spanish Government's moves a few years ago?

[Revolution starts with U]

I certainly think we shouldn't just rape and pillage apes or their lands... but idk, full human rights might be stretching it.
To me, it is something you deal with on a case-by-case basis.

[ComradeMan]

I certainly think we shouldn't just rape and pillage apes or their lands... but idk, full human rights might be stretching it.
To me, it is something you deal with on a case-by-case basis.

Case by case? Does that make you defense attorney or are you making a monkey out of this thread? :D

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know what a "given" right would be for an ape - it's like giving apes the right to have a driver's license - you could grant that right but they'd have no conception of it and no way to exercise the right or defend it, if needed.

IMO meaningful rights don't exist when they are some moral abstraction granted from above: we have the right to life and liberty supposedly... unless we get sick and can't afford insurance, unless we are drafted into a war, unless we unable to find or hold a job, etc. We are given the right to free speech... unless we are foolish enough to use it (in the US: Jacobins, Abolitionists before the Civil War, IWW activists, pacifists during WWI, etc) as the Clash song goes.

So any animal's "rights" currently go only as far as either 1) it suits the needs of some ruling group (of humans that is) 2) Humans organize and fight on the behalf of a given animal. So IMO the best way to make sure that apes (and many other animals) aren't killed-off or pushed into extinction is by getting rid of a system that would put the short-term interests of a few people over the desires of the majority or the long-term well-being of ecosystems etc. If areas of Africa or South Asia were not subject to ruling classes bent on quick development for economic competition, or run by pro-growth IMF policies that mandate selling off natural resources (i.e. jungle and wooded areas), or had so much inequality and poverty that poaching is a vialble black market activity, then there'd at least be the possibility of prioritizing the long-term preservation of wild areas and the homes of many species.

[Ned Kelly]

All animals should be treated ethically, but equal rights, that's absurd

[Queercommie Girl]

Animals should have animal rights, not human rights.

Do they even understand the concept of rights? I doubt it. Also, rights and responsibilities tend to come together. Animals cannot have human rights because they do not have human responsibilities. One cannot put a male gorilla on trial for raping a female gorilla, for example.

If a male gorilla rapes a female human scientist, should he be punished by human law for it?

It doesn't mean I don't support environmentalism and animal welfare in general, of course.

[Queercommie Girl]

I certainly think we shouldn't just rape and pillage apes or their lands... but idk, full human rights might be stretching it.


:confused:

There have actually been cases of male gorillas raping female human primatologists, but I've never heard of human males raping any female apes.

[Queercommie Girl]

P.S. Why is this thread in "religion"?

[Revolution starts with U]

Because the OP is restricted and can't post in philosophy.
Jeez, have some consideration :lol:

[Revy]

There should be ethical protections. They are the only form of animal that we actually can communicate with, through sign language. It should be illegal to eat them or hunt them for any other reason. Also there are apes (chimps, usually) that are used in medical research and I'm not sure that is necessary and it seems like they should be freed from that too.

These are our closest evolutionary relatives and their destiny is to become human like us one day. I think they should be left in the wild and it would be a shame if they went extinct.

[hatzel]

They are the only form of animal that we actually can communicate with, through sign language.I don't really see how our (in)ability to communicate with this or that species should have any impact on said species's treatment. 'Animal rights' (if we want to use that phrase) isn't about 'rewarding' animals based on their relative proximity to humankind.


These are our closest evolutionary relatives and their destiny is to become human like us one day.Yeah, I'm not exactly a scientist or anything but even I know evolution doesn't really go like that...

[∞]

They can't do things that are a part of our human rights. A monkey can't vote, drive, or ask for an abortion. .5% makes a huge difference biologically.

[Revy]

I don't really see how our (in)ability to communicate with this or that species should have any impact on said species's treatment. 'Animal rights' (if we want to use that phrase) isn't about 'rewarding' animals based on their relative proximity to humankind.

Yeah, I'm not exactly a scientist or anything but even I know evolution doesn't really go like that...

Not a scientist either. I didn't realize how dumb it might sound, but I think it's possible, that's what I meant.

I don't believe in "animal rights". Only ethical protection for the highest animals.

[Queercommie Girl]

There should be ethical protections. They are the only form of animal that we actually can communicate with, through sign language. It should be illegal to eat them or hunt them for any other reason. Also there are apes (chimps, usually) that are used in medical research and I'm not sure that is necessary and it seems like they should be freed from that too.

These are our closest evolutionary relatives and their destiny is to become human like us one day. I think they should be left in the wild and it would be a shame if they went extinct.

Um. Evolution is not teleological. There is no "destiny" in Darwinism.

We can't predict how species will evolve in the future. (Which would take at least millions of years anyway)

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't believe in "animal rights". Only ethical protection for the highest animals.

All animals should have some basic animal rights and environmentalist protection, not just the "highest animals". It's kind of human-centric to think those animals that are closer to us are intrinsically superior anyway.

[Queercommie Girl]

They can't do things that are a part of our human rights. A monkey can't vote, drive, or ask for an abortion. .5% makes a huge difference biologically.

Yes, it's not just the quantitative difference that matters, but the qualitative difference between humans and other animals.

Humans are the only species with true language, full self-awareness, and the ability to make and use tools to fundamentally transform the natural world around us.

Ice at -1 degrees and water at 1 degree may only differ by 2 degrees, but these are 2 qualitatively different states of being. Ice at -1 degrees and ice at -100 degrees differ by 99 degrees, but qualitatively both are just ice.

[28350]

What do you mean by rights?

[Queercommie Girl]

What do you mean by rights?

The most basic right would be the right to life, i.e. in most "normal" circumstances no human is allowed to kill or harm the animal who is considered to have this right.

[ColonelCossack]

arent we, like, 90% banana?

[Kuppo Shakur]

Man, I've said it before and I'll say it again: FUCK ANIMALS.

[Property Is Robbery]

Man, I've said it before and I'll say it again: FUCK ANIMALS.
You're an animal, so go fuck yourself.

[Hebrew Hammer]

I'm down for giving gorillas rights, they can aid us in the revolutionz.

Guerilla gorillas:

http://www.littlestuffedbull.com/images/comics/commieapes/apes5.jpg

[Property Is Robbery]

I'm down for giving gorillas rights, they can aid us in the revolutionz.

Guerilla gorillas:

http://www.littlestuffedbull.com/images/comics/commieapes/apes5.jpg
Whats this from?

[ComradeMan]

:confused:

There have actually been cases of male gorillas raping female human primatologists, but I've never heard of human males raping any female apes.

There is in a sense- in Indonesia animal welfare had to rescue an orangutan that was being used as a prostitute.

http://www.animal.org.au/apps/photos/album?albumid=9406703

BTW- in the attacks on humans they were orangutans, not gorillas.

[Revy]

All animals should have some basic animal rights and environmentalist protection, not just the "highest animals". It's kind of human-centric to think those animals that are closer to us are intrinsically superior anyway.

If that were true then we would all have to become vegans.

The fact that they are so close to humans and so intelligent compared to the other animals is an argument for the fact that if we're going to care about the "rights" of any of the animals, it is the apes who at least should have some protections. I'm not talking about protecting endangered species, that has nothing to do with an animal's intelligence, I'm talking about not killing and eating the most intelligent and human-like of animals simply because it's a delicacy.

I don't believe in comparing the whole of the animal kingdom to human beings. It's not - either all animals are stupid and worthless - or they're all super intelligent beings. I don't believe in drawing a line below humans - or not drawing a line at all, to the point where we debate whether it's immoral to kill insects.

[ComradeMan]

If that were true then we would all have to become vegans.

The fact that they are so close to humans and so intelligent compared to the other animals is an argument for the fact that if we're going to care about the "rights" of any of the animals, it is the apes who at least should have some protections. I'm not talking about protecting endangered species, that has nothing to do with an animal's intelligence, I'm talking about not killing and eating the most intelligent and human-like of animals simply because it's a delicacy.

I don't believe in comparing the whole of the animal kingdom to human beings. It's not - either all animals are stupid and worthless - or they're all super intelligent beings. I don't believe in drawing a line below humans - or not drawing a line at all, to the point where we debate whether it's immoral to kill insects.

These are good points and when I was reading through the articles in the OP I did ask myself, if great apes have rights- then do they have responsibilities? I still think the dignity and rights to peaceful existence of these animals should be enforced.

[Queercommie Girl]

If that were true then we would all have to become vegans.

The fact that they are so close to humans and so intelligent compared to the other animals is an argument for the fact that if we're going to care about the "rights" of any of the animals, it is the apes who at least should have some protections. I'm not talking about protecting endangered species, that has nothing to do with an animal's intelligence, I'm talking about not killing and eating the most intelligent and human-like of animals simply because it's a delicacy.

I don't believe in comparing the whole of the animal kingdom to human beings. It's not - either all animals are stupid and worthless - or they're all super intelligent beings. I don't believe in drawing a line below humans - or not drawing a line at all, to the point where we debate whether it's immoral to kill insects.

Fair enough. I would say though that I think all vertebrates, including fish, should have some basic animal rights. Even if they are killed for food, one should make sure the suffering is minimum. (I have goldfish pets so I kind of advocate for more fish rights - fish are still vertebrates and are actually a lot more intelligent than most people think)

All vertebrates share the same basic type of central nervous system. We have basically all the same parts, just in different sizes with some slight structural variations. In fact, human long-term memory is something that is inherited from our fish ancestors 400 million years ago. It's also possible that the human fear of spiders and other arthropods (a very significant proportion of humans have an instinctive fear of at least one type of arthropods) is something that ultimately came from our fish and reptile ancestors, when they lived in a world dominated by species of the arthropoda phylum, before vertebrates finally gained the upper hand and dominated the Earth. (The advantage of vertebrates over the arthropods, in a sense our greatest evolutionary competitors, is the same as the advantage of humans over other animals - a significantly more developed nervous system) Even today, the basal parts of our brains are basically identical to a reptile or fish brain, the mammalian and hominid brain layers are added on top of them, rather than substituting them.

The same cannot be said about invertebrates. Most lack an elaborate central nervous system, so it is questionable if they really feel pain or suffering in any sense similar to how a human, cat or even goldfish might feel. There are exceptions like for instance octopuses which are rather intelligent, but generally speaking invertebrates have more diffused and less centralised nervous systems. They have no real long-term memory, and most of their behaviours are simply directly coded instincts. There is a type of worm with a nervous system so simple that in total it only has a few hundred neurons, and each neuron codes for a specific behavioural response, with absolutely no potential plasticity or flexibility at all. Humans are the other hand have hundreds of billions of neurons with billions of neural pathways that can be flexibly coded and re-coded. (Which is why we have the capacity to learn) It's like the difference between the latest supercomputer and an electromagnetic calculator from 1900.

Ethics is not metaphysical, nor is "suffering" or "pain". One simply cannot feel suffering or pain unless one has a sufficiently developed nervous system. So it is meaningless to talk about any kind of "animal rights" for species that are so far down the evolutionary ladder that they can't feel any kind of suffering or pain.

But I don't agree that it's just a completely continuous spectrum without any qualitative variation at all. Sometimes one really can draw a line to some extent. The basic methods of historical materialism can also be applied to the physical and biological worlds. Just as quantitative changes in human society can lead to qualitative changes (i.e. revolution), so can quantitative changes in physics, chemistry and biological evolution lead to qualitative changes. (E.g. ice melting into water and then boiling into steam as temperature is continuously increased) In fact, the latest scientific theories in evolutionary biology suggest that evolution on Earth was never a completely "smooth" event, but filled with periods where there was very rapid changes within a very short amount of time, e.g. the Cambrian Explosion 542 million years ago which gave rise to most of the animal phyla we have today.

So to some extent a "line" can be drawn between humans and other animals, between mammals and non-mammals, between vertebrates and invertebrates, and between animals and non-animals. This can be seen in terms of qualitative differences in brain structure: only mammals have a neo-cortex, only vertebrates have a true central nervous system, and only animals have neurons. (It would be absurdly ridiculous to argue for "rights" for those forms of life that don't have any kind of nervous system at all, for instance - there is no such thing as abstract "rights" in the idealistic and non-materialist sense)

(In computer science terms, as an analogy, all vertebrates are electronic computers, mammals and lower vertebrates have similar hard drive capacity (long-term memory), but our CPU processor speed and RAM capacity (short-term memory and thinking power) far exceeds that of any lower vertebrate species. Invertebrates on the other hand are like electromagnetic devices and cannot technically be labelled as true electronic computers. Non-animals are just like the wooden tables that the computers and electromagnetic devices sit on...)

[ComradeMan]

Fair enough. I would say though that I think all vertebrates, including fish, should have some basic animal rights. Even if they are killed for food, one should make sure the suffering is minimum. (I have goldfish pets so I kind of advocate for more fish rights - fish are still vertebrates and are actually a lot more intelligent than most people think)

All vertebrates share the same basic type of central nervous system. We have basically all the same parts, just in different sizes with some slight structural variations. In fact, human long-term memory is something that is inherited from our fish ancestors 400 million years ago. It's also possible that the human fear of spiders and other arthropods (a very significant proportion of humans have an instinctive fear of at least one type of arthropods) is something that ultimately came from our fish and reptile ancestors, when they lived in a world dominated by species of the arthropoda phylum, before vertebrates finally gained the upper hand and dominated the Earth. (The advantage of vertebrates over the arthropods, in a sense our greatest evolutionary competitors, is the same as the advantage of humans over other animals - a significantly more developed nervous system) Even today, the basal parts of our brains are basically identical to a reptile or fish brain, the mammalian and hominid brain layers are added on top of them, rather than substituting them.

The same cannot be said about invertebrates. Most lack an elaborate central nervous system, so it is questionable if they really feel pain or suffering in any sense similar to how a human, cat or even goldfish might feel. There are exceptions like for instance octopuses which are rather intelligent, but generally speaking invertebrates have more diffused and less centralised nervous systems. They have no real long-term memory, and most of their behaviours are simply directly coded instincts. There is a type of worm with a nervous system so simple that in total it only has a few hundred neurons, and each neuron codes for a specific behavioural response, with absolutely no potential plasticity or flexibility at all. Humans are the other hand have hundreds of billions of neurons with billions of neural pathways that can be flexibly coded and re-coded. (Which is why we have the capacity to learn) It's like the difference between the latest supercomputer and an electromagnetic calculator from 1900.

Ethics is not metaphysical, nor is "suffering" or "pain". One simply cannot feel suffering or pain unless one has a sufficiently developed nervous system. So it is meaningless to talk about any kind of "animal rights" for species that are so far down the evolutionary ladder that they can't feel any kind of suffering or pain.

But I don't agree that it's just a completely continuous spectrum without any qualitative variation at all. Sometimes one really can draw a line to some extent. The basic methods of historical materialism can also be applied to the physical and biological worlds. Just as quantitative changes in human society can lead to qualitative changes (i.e. revolution), so can quantitative changes in physics, chemistry and biological evolution lead to qualitative changes. (E.g. ice melting into water and then boiling into steam as temperature is continuously increased) In fact, the latest scientific theories in evolutionary biology suggest that evolution on Earth was never a completely "smooth" event, but filled with periods where there was very rapid changes within a very short amount of time, e.g. the Cambrian Explosion 542 million years ago which gave rise to most of the animal phyla we have today.

So to some extent a "line" can be drawn between humans and other animals, between mammals and non-mammals, between vertebrates and invertebrates, and between animals and non-animals. This can be seen in terms of qualitative differences in brain structure: only mammals have a neo-cortex, only vertebrates have a true central nervous system, and only animals have neurons. (It would be absurdly ridiculous to argue for "rights" for those forms of life that don't have any kind of nervous system at all, for instance - there is no such thing as abstract "rights" in the idealistic and non-materialist sense)

(In computer science terms, as an analogy, all vertebrates are electronic computers, mammals and lower vertebrates have similar hard drive capacity (long-term memory), but our CPU processor speed and RAM capacity (short-term memory and thinking power) far exceeds that of any lower vertebrate species. Invertebrates on the other hand are like electromagnetic devices and cannot technically be labelled as true electronic computers)


I knew a snail once, he was quite charming.

[Queercommie Girl]

Just to add, I think ideally in the future humans should clone meat cells for food rather than killing real animals for it. It may also actually be cheaper, healthier and less risky (no infectious diseases) potentially.

Eventually we might even replicate material food from thin air, but that's still a long-way away. Cloning meat is a much more realistic option at the moment.

[Queercommie Girl]

I knew a snail once, he was quite charming.

It's unlikely the snail would have any memory of you at all, :lol: but anyway...

Yes, it's true that in practice our ethical beliefs are also partly subjective rather than "purely scientific". If I had a snail pet I might have to re-write my post. LOL

[ComradeMan]

It's unlikely the snail would have any memory of you at all, :lol: but anyway...

Yes, it's true that in practice our ethical beliefs are also partly subjective rather than "purely scientific". If I had a snail pet I might have to re-write my post. LOL

Not really at all- he was charming to eat in garlic butter!!!! :lol:
Escargots!!!

[Queercommie Girl]

Not really at all- he was charming to eat in garlic butter!!!! :lol:


How did you know it was a "he"?

Actually many snail species are both male and female - Hermaphrodites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite

In biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology), a hermaphrodite is an organism that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexes).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#cite_note-0)

Many taxonomic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic) groups of animals (mostly invertebrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invertebrates)) do not have separate sexes. In these groups, hermaphroditism is a normal condition, enabling a form of sexual reproduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction) in which both partners can act as the "female" or "male". For example, the great majority of pulmonate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonate) snails, opisthobranch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opisthobranch) snails (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snails) and slugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slugs) are hermaphrodites. Hermaphroditism is also found in some fish species and to a lesser degree in other vertebrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrates). Most plants are also hermaphrodites.



Escargots!!!Which means?

[Revolution starts with U]

It means snail.

But why limit respect to just things with central nervous systems? Why is that different than harming a plant? Why limit it to life in general, what is different between that and harming a rock?

[Queercommie Girl]

It means snail.

But why limit respect to just things with central nervous systems? Why is that different than harming a plant? Why limit it to life in general, what is different between that and harming a rock?

Um. Only animals with a central nervous system would actually feel pain and suffering like humans do. Plants not only don't have a central nervous system, they don't even have neurons. So to talk about "plant rights" outside the context of environmental conservation would seem pointless from a materialist perspective.

In fact, given the fact that our basal ganglia even today is still essentially no different from a reptile or fish brain (the mammalian and hominid brain layers are added on top of it, but do not substitute it), empirically speaking one could actually say that a goldfish feels pain and suffering in ways which aren't so essentially different from how humans do, in at least a few basic important ways.

There is the philosophical problem about knowing animal's minds. How do we actually know that animals have a mind which can feel pain and suffering at all, since we don't know what it is like to be an animal? Well the empirical answer to that, with respect to vertebrate animals, is that essentially all vertebrates have the same kind of basic design with respect to their central nervous systems, and since the "mind" is nothing more than the psychological manifestation of the physical brain from a materialist and atheist perspective, it would imply that at least all vertebrates are capable of feeling some kind of pain and suffering.

This would make sense if you consider the fact that my 150 millionth-generation grandparents were literally fish, some 400 million years ago, not so different from my goldfish pets in the tank beside me right now (which also makes these goldfish my cousins in the technical sense LOL :lol: - our ancestors first diverged 400 million years ago). Many of the most basic functions of the now super-advanced human brain actually first evolved during that remote era, including things like long-term memory, which most invertebrates do not possess.

Of course, all life on Earth are related, but the structures of invertebrate nervous systems are so different from our own it would be more difficult to answer that philosophical question regarding animal's minds empirically regarding invertebrates.

Obviously if you subscribe to an idealistic or metaphysical theory of ethics and rights, like e.g. rights are something that is "God-given" or absolute in an intrinsic Platonic sense, then what I said here doesn't apply. My idea here only applies if one is a complete materialist atheist who considers "ethics" and "rights" solely from the perspective of empirical science. In this paradigm there are no intrinsic "rights", all rights are necessarily context-dependent. In fact, there is no abstract "individual" at all.

[ComradeMan]

It means snail.

But why limit respect to just things with central nervous systems? Why is that different than harming a plant? Why limit it to life in general, what is different between that and harming a rock?

You are a Jain?

[Revolution starts with U]

I am an existing, conscious being. Nothing more.
But I think there is no difference between human rights, animal rights, and environmental rights. Rights are what we deem we want to protect. To me, what we want to protect, is existence in all of its forms. That includes humans, apes, fish, plants, ameobas, rocks, and gasses.
There are varying degrees of protection to be afforded to each, sure. But they all need some protection from those (us) who are conscious of our fragile and unexpected existence.

[ComradeMan]

I am an existing, conscious being. Nothing more.
But I think there is no difference between human rights, animal rights, and environmental rights. Rights are what we deem we want to protect. To me, what we want to protect, is existence in all of its forms. That includes humans, apes, fish, plants, ameobas, rocks, and gasses.
There are varying degrees of protection to be afforded to each, sure. But they all need some protection from those (us) who are conscious of our fragile and unexpected existence.

What you have said is very similar to Jain doctrine.

[Revolution starts with U]

It is what it is :lol:

[ComradeMan]

It is what it is :lol:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Mahavir.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mahavir.jpg

[∞]

Buddha had some puffy nips.

[Queercommie Girl]

I am an existing, conscious being. Nothing more.
But I think there is no difference between human rights, animal rights, and environmental rights. Rights are what we deem we want to protect. To me, what we want to protect, is existence in all of its forms. That includes humans, apes, fish, plants, ameobas, rocks, and gasses.
There are varying degrees of protection to be afforded to each, sure. But they all need some protection from those (us) who are conscious of our fragile and unexpected existence.

I don't disagree with you in the ultimate sense, but your choice of words is somewhat strange. From a linguistic point of view it simply makes no sense to talk about the "rights" of an inanimate object. It's much more sensible to say one should have a concern for all things in the universe.

But the myriad things in the universe are not just a smooth continuum. One cannot ignore qualitative differences/changes. As I said, the basic philosophical framework of Marxism can also be applied to the natural world. There are both quantitative and qualitative differences. We should have concern for everything yes, but to different qualitative degrees depending on what qualitative category the thing belongs to.

[Revolution starts with U]

We're really saying the same thing :)
(I don't believe "rights" exist at all tho, other than as something we have come together and said "this will be what we protect." Other than that, it just seems like you're implanting some cosmic consciousness into it.)

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't believe "rights" exist at all tho, other than as something we have come together and said "this will be what we protect."


If that's the case what you are really saying is that "rights" exist in the empirical and pragmatic sense but not in the abstract, intrinsic or metaphysical sense. "Rights" have an objective social reality, not an objective natural reality.



Other than that, it just seems like you're implanting some cosmic consciousness into it.
:confused:

There is nothing really special about human "consciousness", it's nothing but a material product of nature. I've not said anything in the other direction though, other than the fact animals that do feel pain and suffer should have some basic rights.

I take the "hard materialist" view of the "mind": the "mind" is nothing but the physical brain.

So I think you've got it the wrong way around. I'm not saying "all matter is consciousness", I'm saying ultimately the so-called "consciousness" is nothing but concrete matter. I reject all forms of metaphysics on this issue.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Buddha had some puffy nips.

Is this the Buddha? I thought it might be Mahavira, the founder of Jainism. But I agree, cool nips.

[Revolution starts with U]

Puffy nipples is a sign of the chi bursting out of his body

;)

[ComradeMan]

Is this the Buddha? I thought it might be Mahavira, the founder of Jainism. But I agree, cool nips.

Thanks... I was just about to clarify this....

Not everyone sitting in a lotus position is Buddha...

It is indeed the Mahavira.