Existentialists and relativists might say that whatever we choose to pretend becomes reality for that is all the reality there is Or

By admin
Ballet Shoes Center.com

Published: July 16, 2010

commentComment        

Existentialists and relativists might say that whatever we choose to pretend becomes reality, for that is all the reality there is Or we can admit that “rights” is a term of convenience. The philosophical superstructure is malleable; but “rights” remains an unimprovably convenient social device. Once the concept is in place, we need not bother to think about the details.But should we accord rights only to other humans? Some aboriginal peoples believe that rocks and rivers have rights. Why not? The socially convenient device that protects us from each other can serve to protect our surroundings. The all-embracing concept of rights will help us to respect the things we value, whatever those things might be.To the broad concept of “rights”, sophisticates have added three conditional clauses: commensurability, responsibility, and sensibility Fail any one of the three and – no rights Jolly bad luck, but there you go.

Animals seem to fail on at least two counts and, until the last few years, were deemed in most scientific circles to fail in the third as well.Commensurability in this context means tit for tat I credit you with “rights” so long as you respect mine. But suppose you have no power to invade my space? Why should I care? So the notion has arisen that rights are proportional to power; the most powerful are the most able to encroach on others and must be placated accordingly The rich have more “rights” than the poor. Animals have no effective power, so it seems silly to grant them “rights” But this sounds callous, uncivilised. So we dress it up a little: people earn rights insofar as they have and accept responsibility. Cows and pigs accept no responsibility and certainly not towards us. Therefore they have no rights.Of course, this argument quickly runs into trouble. Do babies have responsibility? What of people with Alzheimer’s, or in a coma? We can get around this with a little pragmatism: we were all babies once, and if babies were not granted rights then none would get to be adults.

Any of us might be struck down so we should grant rights to the unfortunate. None of us will be chickens, however, so again, the notion of “rights” does not apply.But is it ineluctably the case that rights and responsibilities should go together? This is an arbitrary codicil; as arbitrary as the concept of “rights” itself Rights is a device for safeguarding respect. If we think animals are worthy of respect then we should credit them with rights irrespective of any feelings that they might have for us.What of sentience? One of the least attractive contributions of science in this century has proved to be that of behaviourism, initiated before World War I in part by Ivan Pavlov but primarily by the American J B Watson. The aim was laudable enough – to make animal psychology a true science; and Watson and his colleagues argued, in positivist vein, that nothing can be a science that is not based exclusively on qualities that can be directly observed and quantified. Thought and feelings cannot be measured, and so were left out of account All that could actually be measured was behaviour Hence “behaviourism”.Thus stated, the approach was sensible. The behaviourists were acknowledging Sir Peter Medawar’s adage – that “science is the art of the soluble” Ask questions about behaviour, and they could be answered.


Comments are closed.

Ballet Shoes Center Latest

>Next Articles

Top Brands