And I’m the ‘ape’ … classic.

Also…

If the standard is that, to have renforceable rights, a being must be able to recognize them, articulate them, participate in their enforcement, or bring suit on behalf of them, then clearly infants, advanced Alzheimer’s patients, and comatose patients cannot have enforceable rights.

All of those examples you list are humans, none of whom are necessarily in a permanent state of incapacitation. Infants eventually become adults. A cure for Alzheimer’s may eventually be found. Comatose patients may one day wake up. All of these people also are recognized to have some rights…that’s why the hospital’s not allowed to just yank their feeding tubes because they feel like it. They have to consult with the families and courts, to insure that the rights and wishes of the patient are being represented as best possible under the individual circumstances. That’s why people set up living wills. That’s why courts set up conservatorships to care for people incapable of caring for themselves. Incapacitated humans are still, rightly, seen as having rights despite their inability to represent themselves because a) the situation is not always permanent, and b) stripping rights from incapacitated humans also makes it easier to strip rights from everyone else. The second reason, by the way, is why I don’t exclude people like those in your examples from the rights debate. Denying rights to animals does not endanger human rights…only giving them rights can do that.

My bright line would be the reproductive barrier for species. Currently humans can only reproduce with other humans so I don’t consider that to be a vague or arbitrary line for cutting off human rights at all…in fact, I think it’s the only non-arbitrary line in the entire “animal rights” debate. Granted that technology is evolving to the point where hybrid species may eventually develop and at the point those species emerge the debate over animal rights should, and very likely will, be brought to the foreground. But until those instances occur and those hybrids become a reality instead of just a hypothetical fantasy it seems a waste of time to debate it because we don’t know what characteristics those creatures would possess. Same with extraterrestrials. If they were someday to arrive on our planet, I’m probably going to be open to a discussion about what rights they should or shouldn’t possess in human society. Until then, it’s just science fiction, so what’s the point (beyond maybe coming up with a premise for an interesting novel)?

As things currently stand, animals should not be granted rights because, as you mentioned and as the entire animal rights debate clearly illustrates, they can’t even participate in the discussion. The debate for animal rights right now is based entirely in human empathy for animals…not on any actual stated desire by animals themselves for what rights they should possess. Dogs and cats aren’t asking for liberation from being pets/slaves. If I were to seriously ask my dog if he was happy being my slave he’d probably stare at me, wag his tail and jump up and down for joy, especially if there were a Schnausage attached to the question. As long as I treat him well (and sadly, probably even if I didn’t) he’s not going to try and escape or start a revolution because he’s content with the current arrangement which is not based on equality (at all). The call for animal rights is based on what animal lovers think animals want. And that’s not solid ground for a system of law, particularly since (as I mentioned before) the majority of people aren’t even willing to accept a universal right to life for animals (because it would lead to human starvation and human suffering).

What’s more, granting rights to animals also gives government ample ground to infiltrate even more into our lives. Do you think, once animals are granted life, some group like PETA isn’t going to immediately claim that killing cattle for food is cruelty and a violation of their lives? If the government is one that accepts animal rights, what do you think their response is going to be? What about euthanizing pets with crippling injuries? Do you think it’s going to be of benefit to humans to have to hire a lawyer and go through a court of law to get an okay to put their arthritic, incontinent dog to sleep because we have to respect the dog’s “rights”, even though we have no possible way of knowing what the dog does or doesn’t want in that situation?

When people talk about “rights” for animals, they aren’t really talking about rights, they’re talking about protections, which is different. And that’s something that can be better provided under property laws than anything else, by putting the power in the hands of the animals’ owners…not by granting rights to animals themselves that those animals can neither fully comprehend nor exercise.

As a thought experiment, imagine if extraterrestrials find our planet, and co-habitate with us. Obviously to get here they would need technology as yet unimagined by humans, which would indicate they could reason on a level at least as impressive as the human level. Would those beings fail to qualify for enforceable rights because they weren’t human? If they would qualify, why would they?

Perhaps the answer is that it isn’t anything uniquely “human” that we want to protect, but rather a set of characteristics that we think are worthy of respect. And to the degree that an animal shows those characteristics, we recognize and enforce its rights.

And I completely agree with your assessment of rights in your response to Steve’s position…our disagreements about their applicability to animals aside.

Respectfully, I haven’t moved the goalposts…my position has always been that rights are a human creation, exercised and enforced only within human society, and as such only humans actually have rights. Animals don’t recognize human rights, animals don’t enforce human rights, animals don’t participate in arbitration or court cases or civil suits themselves, they aren’t capable of articulating their rights and likely never will be, and we don’t even recognize a fundamental right to life for animals (which all other rights stem from) because they’re still a source of food for us. If the situation changed, and animals suddenly were capable of consciously articulating and exercising their rights, I’d re-evaluate and my opinion on it would probably change. But they are not, and as such I don’t think they belong in a discussion about rights, so much as a discussion about how they may be protected under property laws.

As for people, I don’t differentiate between different groups of humans as to who has rights and who doesn’t. I believe the only argument to be had with regards to the groups you’ve named, is what rights we should consider “alienable” vs. “inalienable”. And those distinctions obviously wouldn’t be the same for all groups, nor can you come to an absolute agreement about rights, because the situation of an Alzheimer’s patient (whose incapacities are currently permanent) is clearly different from that of a normal child (whose incapacities are not).

You’ve moved the goalpost. A few comments above, you wrote that “the idea of giving animals “rights” in any kind of sense that humans generally mean them is insane, because animals can neither comprehend those rights nor exercise those rights in any meaningful sense…nor do they generally recognize those rights in others.” That’s a legitimate standard for rights.

But when I pointed out that those same characteristics apply to Alzheimer’s patients and infants, you changed the standard, saying that those latter two groups still deserve rights by virtue of their being human. But isn’t that begging the question? Isn’t the point of this to discuss the standard by which we judge whether to recognize that something has rights? It’s possible that only humans do, and it’s possible that animals do, too. But merely claiming that only humans have rights, and then denying animals rights for the sole reason that they aren’t human is not a very compelling argument.

Even if one grants that individuals have rights by virtue of their existence, it’s nonsense to say that the concept of rights isn’t a human creation. If humans didn’t come up with the idea, who did? Perhaps rights are like the principles of mathematics, and have always existed “out there” somewhere, but merely had to be discovered. Ok, but until the idea of rights was “discovered” (and I think that idea is dubious), rights didn’t exist in any meaningful way; certainly not in any way that would allow for their enforcement.

I think you’re confused about what rights are. They’re not a real thing, you know. You can’t order “rights” down at the local Wendy’s and have the workers wrap your rights up to go. Instead, “right” is just a linguistic device used to indicate some claim you have against government interference with your private life. And the idea that such spheres of privacy exist, and that government shouldn’t be able to touch them, is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. Those principles were discovered, recognized, and made worthwhile by humans, struggling against arbitrary political authority (or protecting their status and property).

In other words, rights don’t exist until humans recognize that they exist, which in turn creates a moral claim for their enforcement (note: rights don’t depend on the actual enforcement, only on the moral claim for recognition).

You seem to think that the recognition of “natural rights” is a prerequisite to call oneself a libertarian. Not true. Mises didn’t find “natural rights” persuasive, and Liberty magazine dubbed him the “libertarian of the century.” Of course, that doesn’t mean Mises really cared about liberty, but I think a prima facie case can be made that he did.

Finally, a few comments above you wrote that you didn’t give a damn about “the product of government, i.e., legal system”). Of course, the well-read libertarian understands that legal systems are not the product of government. Would you like me to recommend a few books to catch you up?

Now, if you’re talking about actual creation, could you please explain to me just who creates these so-called rights, and how they do so? If they don’t bother to do it before you and I are born, would that mean there was nothing morally wrong with me smashing your head with a rock?

Whenever one subgroup presumes to have the authority to decide for everyone else what is right and wrong, and imposes that through force, rather than reason—and, furthermore, claims a monopoly on the use of force—they are, for the purposes of this discussion, indistinguishable from government in every pertinent aspect.

What argument, other than bald-faced speciesism, could justify giving the newborn robust rights, but denying even the most basic right to humane treatment to the chimpanzee?

In all honesty, I probably am a speciesist (sp?). But given my beliefs on the nature of human rights I think that’s probably necessary.

You’re right not to stand by in situations like those. And you’re right to do so because, whether you admit it or not, you recognize that animals, as Nozick writes, “count for something.”

I recognize that I, personally, empathize with animals and that I, personally, cannot stomach standing by while an animal is abused or tortured. That is, however, a moral choice and should not be confused with what should be considered legal. I sympathize with animals who are abused, I despise the people who abuse them and personally choose to shun such people, but I do not support granting animals any kind of rights under the law (aside from property) to prevent that because I also believe that doing so will inevitably bring human rights and animal rights into conflict and devalue human rights in the eyes of the law. Beyond protections as property I don’t think you can grant animals rights without endangering human rights.

We don’t give children all the rights we give adults, but that doesn’t mean we can do to them what we will. You say it’s “insane” to grant animals rights because they “can neither comprehend those rights nor exercise those rights in any meaningful sense…nor do they generally recognize those rights in others.”

Children are still humans and will eventually develop the ability to recognize and exercise human rights. Animals never will. And people with developmental disabilities, Alzheimer’s, etc. still merit considerations as they are human beings (although their rights are more abridged than people without disabilities, so there’s probably room to argue about what rights for them are alienable or inalienable). I recognize that some people would probably think that an argument about animal rights could also be extended to humans with incapacities, but honestly I think the redline’s more simple than that…human rights should end at the species reproductive barrier. Any creature that has not demonstrated a capacity for human reason, whose progeny will also not develop that capacity, and who cannot interbreed with humans are not deserving of human rights.

Rights (or at least their recognition) can be a human creation without begin a grant from government. That is, unless you think all human activity is necessarily government activity, in which case perhaps you ought to dust off the ol’ libertarian books as well.

The controversy in the linked article is whether the exhibit is real at all, or instead a hoax. It ends, “no dead animals were in evidence”. So far, not one source confirms that a dog was abused, but many deny it.

None of this uncertainty occurs in your post, which is all most of your readers will see. Instead, you have a link to a picture of a dog, framed by a story about horrific abuse of that dog.

UCrawford:…you’re confusing morality with legality. Rights are a legal creation…

You need to do more reading before you continue to call yourself a libertarian. I am speaking of nothing BUT morality when I use that word. I don’t give a damn about the product of government, i.e., legal system.

Off you go.

You wrote, “I probably wouldn’t stand by (and haven’t, in the past) if I saw someone beating a dog or trying to set a cat on fire or doing any number of things of that nature…whether it was their animal or not.”

You’re right not to stand by in situations like those. And you’re right to do so because, whether you admit it or not, you recognize that animals, as Nozick writes, “count for something.” Does that mean they should be given the full range of human rights? Should we flip a coin to decide whether to save a human or an animal?

Of course not, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t grant SOME rights to animals (e.g., the right not to be tortured). We don’t give children all the rights we give adults, but that doesn’t mean we can do to them what we will.

You say it’s “insane” to grant animals rights because they “can neither comprehend those rights nor exercise those rights in any meaningful sense…nor do they generally recognize those rights in others.”

Surely all of those things apply to infants as well (and to some other sets: advanced Alzheimer’s patients, say?). Unless you’re willing to strip infants and those already unfortunate folks with Alzheimer’s of their rights, you have to come up with some other standard than the ones you listed for who (or what) should be given rights. In fact, there’s almost no question that an adult chimpanzee experiences the world in a much deeper way than does a human newborn. Which, then, should have rights? Either? Both? What argument, other than bald-faced speciesism, could justify giving the newborn robust rights, but denying even the most basic right to humane treatment to the chimpanzee?

With all due respect, it appears that a) the museum curator has stated for the record that the dog was neither mistreated nor killed and b) the link in comment 13 says that it appears the artist you named didn’t even participate in that exhibit so the story appears to be unsubstantiated.

The dog didn’t look healthy to me either, but then that shouldn’t be unexpected if they picked up a stray off the street. Doesn’t mean they were responsible for its appearance, or that they killed it or even mistreated it.

It isn’t wrong for me to run you over just because some people at some point in history (which you don’t specify) decided it was. It’s wrong because you have an inherent right to your life, despite what anyone claims to the contrary.

You’re doing what a lot of zealots do…you’re confusing morality with legality. Rights are a legal creation by humans to set up basic protections for individuals. They don’t naturally exist because human rights are only respected within human society, as I was trying to illustrate with the bear metaphor. Animals don’t recognize a right to life simply because they don’t automatically try to kill you…the only recognition of human life/rights animals have appears to be out of either affection or self-interest. And nothing else in nature recognizes a right to life, human or otherwise. Tornados don’t recognize a right to life. Typhoons don’t recognize a right to life. Giant asteroids don’t recognize a right to life. Humans don’t even recognize a right to life in animals, considering that we kill them frequently for food and sport (which is usually fine by me), or an absolute right to life in other humans (considering how often we go to war). So, by all means explain to me how your argument about the existence of a natural right to life is not religious in nature and how it extends beyond human society.

And if your rebuttal to this question is to throw out another personal attack against what you perceive as my “ignorance” don’t bother wasting your time with a response because you don’t know me, I don’t know you, and I’m not interested in hearing it. There are plenty of people on the Net who can discuss topics rationally without resorting to ad hominum attacks and troll tactics to cover the holes in their arguments. And those are the only people I’m interested in getting into a discussion with.

“That dog didn’t look healthy” is a cop-out.

This is a question that comes up from time to time in libertarian circles, and to which I have yet to see a truly satisfactory answer: are animal rights reconcilable with libertarianism in a way which permits humans to act freely? To be sure, in the …..