I want to propose a new ethics, that combines animal rights with deep ecology.
Patho-biocentrism states that 'life' (bios) and 'sentience' (feelings, pathos) are the two central (most important) criteria for a being to claim rights.
Let's start with the formulation of the basic right: the right not to be treated as merely means to our ends. I.e. the right not to be harmed while treating a being as if it were a tool or a property.

This basic right, like all rights, is a protection of interests. The question is: what kind of beings have interests? Perhaps a table as an interest not to be broken, but that is a very trivial interest. On the other hand, living beings have complex interests, as they have a metabolism and a complex self-organizing activity. Living beings have to actively search for food to sustain themselves. In the set of the living beings, there are the sentient beings. They do not only have complex interests, but they can also feel their interests. they have a subjective experience of their needs. Fear means that the interest of safety is not met, pain indicates a violation of the interest of physical integrity,...
So, living beings have complex interests and sentient beings have a complex relation with their interests. Therefore, a relation between those two criteria (life and sentience) and the concept of rights makes sense.

But there's more. The basic right also refers to 'our ends. Now, who are 'we'? The basic right not only refers to the moral patient (the being who gets the right), but also to the moral agent (the being who gives the right). And it is this moral agent that should not treat moral patients as means to his ends. These moral agents have a duty to respect the rights of moral patients.
So who are the moral agents? Moral agents are the beings that feel concern and empathy for others, and can reflect on that, and they have to be able to understand the notion of rights. So, adult human beings without severe brain damage are moral agents. Now we can feel concern for vulnerable beings, and typically living beings are vulnerable. And we can only feel empathy with sentient beings. Here we see again living and sentient beings appear. Coincidence? It means that it does make sense that moral agents give (or have to give) the basic right to living and sentient beings.
So to conclude: life and sentience are the two major criteria to grant rights. Other criteria (social intelligence, self-consciousness,...) are not relevant, because babies and mentally disabled persons also have the basic right.

The basic right refers also to 'ends' or needs. We have to make a distinction between essential (or basic) needs (including vital needs, but also the need for friendship, knowledge, meaning, communication, creativity,...) and trivial (or luxury) needs. Typically, these luxury needs have a high ecological impact. Luxury needs can often be recognized by their socio-cultural dependence (manipulability). We think of (sexual or social) status, cultural habits, traditions, advertising, fashion,... These needs are created, relative, changeable,...

In summary: we have two criteria: life and sentience, and two kinds of needs: essential and trivial. They can be linked in a consistent way, leading to two ethical principles.
Principle 1: all living beings (living cells) have the basic right not to be killed for our trivial needs. In this sense, all living cells are equal (in moral terms).
Principle 2: all sentient beings (conscious subjects) have the basic right not to be used (killed, harmed, locked up) for neither essential nor trivial means. In this sense, all sentient beings are equal. (We can make one further nuance: perhaps one might kill a sentient being for vital/survival needs. We can think of the Inuit who have to survive on fishing and hunting.)

Although all living cells are equal, when they belong to a sentient being, they inherit a stronger basic right.
The above two principles represent biocentrism and pathocentrism, as can be seen in the deep ecology and animal rights movements. This unified pathobiocentrism requires a sober and vegan lifestyle: A life in voluntary simplicity, and without using animals nor animal products.

Animals, on the other hand, are not rational agents. Their action is governed by instinct rather than rational deliberation. When a dog is hungry it runs to its food bowl, it acts from habit, not rational deliberation.

Similarly, a dog cannot decide what kind of dog it is going to be; whether it will be friendly or aggressive, playful or timid, good or bad.

Nor can it decide what to do in the same way that a rational agent can.

Therefore it would seem we cannot apply Kant's reasoning to animals. A cow does not make the conscious decision to live, it cannot choose to kill itself, so what difference does it make if we kill it?

I want to propose a new ethics, that combines animal rights with deep ecology.
Patho-biocentrism states that 'life' (bios) and 'sentience' (feelings, pathos) are the two central (most important) criteria for a being to claim rights.
Let's start with the formulation of the basic right: the right not to be treated as merely means to our ends. I.e. the right not to be harmed while treating a being as if it were a tool or a property.
This basic right, like all rights, is a protection of interests. The question is: what kind of beings have interests? Perhaps a table as an interest not to be broken, but that is a very trivial interest. On the other hand, living beings have complex interests, as they have a metabolism and a complex self-organizing activity. Living beings have to actively search for food to sustain themselves. In the set of the living beings, there are the sentient beings. They do not only have complex interests, but they can also feel their interests. they have a subjective experience of their needs. Fear means that the interest of safety is not met, pain indicates a violation of the interest of physical integrity,...
So, living beings have complex interests and sentient beings have a complex relation with their interests. Therefore, a relation between those two criteria (life and sentience) and the concept of rights makes sense.

But there's more. The basic right also refers to 'our ends. Now, who are 'we'? The basic right not only refers to the moral patient (the being who gets the right), but also to the moral agent (the being who gives the right). And it is this moral agent that should not treat moral patients as means to his ends. These moral agents have a duty to respect the rights of moral patients.
So who are the moral agents? Moral agents are the beings that feel concern and empathy for others, and can reflect on that, and they have to be able to understand the notion of rights. So, adult human beings without severe brain damage are moral agents. Now we can feel concern for vulnerable beings, and typically living beings are vulnerable. And we can only feel empathy with sentient beings. Here we see again living and sentient beings appear. Coincidence? It means that it does make sense that moral agents give (or have to give) the basic right to living and sentient beings.
So to conclude: life and sentience are the two major criteria to grant rights. Other criteria (social intelligence, self-consciousness,...) are not relevant, because babies and mentally disabled persons also have the basic right.

The basic right refers also to 'ends' or needs. We have to make a distinction between essential (or basic) needs (including vital needs, but also the need for friendship, knowledge, meaning, communication, creativity,...) and trivial (or luxury) needs. Typically, these luxury needs have a high ecological impact. Luxury needs can often be recognized by their socio-cultural dependence (manipulability). We think of (sexual or social) status, cultural habits, traditions, advertising, fashion,... These needs are created, relative, changeable,...

In summary: we have two criteria: life and sentience, and two kinds of needs: essential and trivial. They can be linked in a consistent way, leading to two ethical principles.
Principle 1: all living beings (living cells) have the basic right not to be killed for our trivial needs. In this sense, all living cells are equal (in moral terms).
Principle 2: all sentient beings (conscious subjects) have the basic right not to be used (killed, harmed, locked up) for neither essential nor trivial means. In this sense, all sentient beings are equal. (We can make one further nuance: perhaps one might kill a sentient being for vital/survival needs. We can think of the Inuit who have to survive on fishing and hunting.)

Although all living cells are equal, when they belong to a sentient being, they inherit a stronger basic right.
The above two principles represent biocentrism and pathocentrism, as can be seen in the deep ecology and animal rights movements. This unified pathobiocentrism requires a sober and vegan lifestyle: A life in voluntary simplicity, and without using animals nor animal products.

Patho-biocentrism states that 'life' (bios) and 'sentience' (feelings, pathos) are the two central (most important) criteria for a being to claim rights.

Quote:

Feelings aren't enough. I think we should consider our predatory roots. Our eyes are in the front. We are tool-making slayers. We don't respect human rights. It's a nice thought. I love cows, both living and on a hamburger bun.

Another problem, assuming one agrees with feelings as a claim to rights. How does one test for feeling? And what if it is "proved"(how?) that roaches have feelings? I personally assume that rats can feel pain.

When do the rights of your loved ones trump the rights of dumb animals? Do you propose that we cage our own species in the name of another? For if laws were enacted, humans would have to punish humans by expropriating their property, putting them in cages, and perhaps if fanatics ruled the land: execution.

Also how does animal rights tie in with the rights of the unborn? How can abortion be justified if rats have rights? Can we prove a fetus does not feel pain?

Clearly you have Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative in mind, "act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end." Kant, adopts this because he believes that there is something about people, their humanity, that is an end in itself. That is, it gives them intrinsic worth, or objective value, and in these respects we are not allowed to use people as means. For example, we are allowed to use a taxi driver, just as we use a horse, as a means of transportation. However, he must first agree to do this, which he does in the understanding that you will pay him in the end; we require no such agreement from a horse.

Kant thought this intrinsic value stems from human autonomy. That we are capable of using reason to decide what to do, how to do it, and what kind of person to be; we are rational agents. If we are used as means our autonomy has been taken away from us, we have not been allowed to decide for ourselves what we want to do. Therefore, you are not allowed to coerce or manipulate people to achieve your ends, for example, by withholding information from them or lying to them about things that might change how they decide to act.

Animals, on the other hand, are not rational agents. Their action is governed by instinct rather than rational deliberation. When a dog is hungry it runs to its food bowl, it acts from habit, not rational deliberation. Similarly, a dog cannot decide what kind of dog it is going to be; whether it will be friendly or aggressive, playful or timid, good or bad. Nor can it decide what to do in the same way that a rational agent can. Therefore it would seem we cannot apply Kant's reasoning to animals. A cow does not make the conscious decision to live, it cannot choose to kill itself, so what difference does it make if we kill it?

I'm not sure why you think this 'basic right' applies to animals, or anyone for that matter. You seem to suggest life and sentience, but you don't make a coherent argument in favour of this. It certainly does not follow that just because something is alive, or because something is sentient, that there are any constraints on how we may treat it. Why is it impermissible to use animals as means to an end? You can't just say that all living things have rights without justifying this claim.

It doesn't matter how much an organisms life is worth. i wish it did, but unfairness is never going to stop. Hunting, animal testing, animal butchering. Humans crave meat, and so long as they do, animals lives aren't really relevant.

For a long time I had liked to believe that humans had become more rational. More peaceful, less "animalistic". Less imperialistic, less barbaric, more civilized. But it turns out, when you look around at some of the stuff that's happening.. We're living in the same barbaric world as Napoleon was.

If your wife/sister/mom, and your dog were both drowning, who would you save?

Feelings aren't enough. I think we should consider our predatory roots. Our eyes are in the front. We are tool-making slayers. We don't respect human rights. It's a nice thought. I love cows, both living and on a hamburger bun.

Another problem, assuming one agrees with feelings as a claim to rights. How does one test for feeling? And what if it is "proved"(how?) that roaches have feelings? I personally assume that rats can feel pain.

When do the rights of your loved ones trump the rights of dumb animals? Do you propose that we cage our own species in the name of another?

Also how does animal rights tie in with the rights of the unborn? How can abortion be justified if rats have rights? Can we prove a fetus does not feel pain?

Okay.... let me put it in a new perspective. An unknown child and an unknown dog are drowning.

And, I wouldn't hold you as immoral. I understand emotional aspects, and because of my own, I would be mad at you. Rationally speaking, I shouldn't be, but emotionally speaking, I should be. I would have done the same for my child as you did with yours, however, I would have tried to save them both.

There are several tests: physiological reactions, behaviour, neuro-anatomy, evolutionary adaptation,... And from this we can conclude that beings with a functioning central nervous system are sentient beings.
There are also some doubts, e.g. insects, but that doesn't threat our ethics; we can deal with that (I also don't eat insects).

Quote:

This is a leap from the brain as object to the mind as feeling subject. I don't think it's that easy. We could easily be wrong.

Deepeco;112783 wrote:

There are several tests: physiological reactions, behaviour, neuro-anatomy, evolutionary adaptation,... And from this we can conclude that beings with a functioning central nervous system are sentient beings.
There are also some doubts, e.g. insects, but that doesn't threat our ethics; we can deal with that (I also don't eat insects).

Quote:

This is a leap from the brain as object to the mind as feeling subject. I don't think it's that easy. We could easily be wrong.

I'd suggest we will use the same criteria that we use to test the feelings of mentally disabled persons or baby's (people that can't talk). Yes, it's possible that baby's don't feel pain whil they are screeming. But come on, let's suppose they do. If they don't feel pain and we treat them as if they do, it's not bad. But If they would feel pain and treat them as they didn't...

Why are our predatory roots important in this moral decision making?

Reconstructo;112788 wrote:

Deepeco;112783 wrote:

There are several tests: physiological reactions, behaviour, neuro-anatomy, evolutionary adaptation,... And from this we can conclude that beings with a functioning central nervous system are sentient beings.
There are also some doubts, e.g. insects, but that doesn't threat our ethics; we can deal with that (I also don't eat insects).


I'd suggest we will use the same criteria that we use to test the feelings of mentally disabled persons or baby's (people that can't talk). Yes, it's possible that bay's don't feel pain whil they are screeming. But come on, let's suppose they do. If they don't feel pain and we treat them as if they do, it's not bad. But If they would feel pain and treat them as they didn't...

Still, there must be some borderline animals, and whose going to make that call? And what will the punishment be for owning a mousetrap? Will we have criminal trials when dogs are hit by cars? Will meat be outlawed?

What are morals based on? I don't believe it's logic which deals with tautologies. Rather I think that morals are based on feelings. If you propose an ethic for man that is not congruent with his nature, it's not going to stick. Man is a killer. He's generally not as sympathetic as he pretends to be. Perhaps some are more sympathetic than others. Perhaps we tend to adopt Causes and this is one of our modes of conquest, to play the law-giver.

Yes, human rights are important to me. Animals rights can only be the reduction of human rights, as their enforcement would be an imposition of man's freedom to use animals for work, food, pets, etc.

I could be wrong, of course. I offer only my opinion. But life experience has shown me a thing or two about man's bleeding heart. He's a status seeking predator. If his claws are withdrawn it's because the game changes, not the player.

Still, there must be some borderline animals, and whose going to make that call? And what will the punishment be for owning a mousetrap? Will we have criminal trials when dogs are hit by cars? Will roadkill be buried at the taxpayers' expense? Will meat be outlawed?

And what am I? Some strange predator...
If I can overcome my predatory roots, why wouldn't you?
I don't like punishments that much. Anyway, a brief answer
-mousetraps: there are life traps that don't kill the mice. So in this case there is really no reason to kill mice.
-dogs and cars: if it was an accident, we treat the driver the same way as if he killed a reckless child by accident... If however he drove to fast...
-burial: is not necessary. You can do it if you want. I buried my pet once... But were not talking here about the right to be buried...
-yes, meat will have be outlawed in most cultures, due to ethical reasons.

The same goes for me. I tolerate his choice, because it is not mine. If I could see everyone as equals with no emotion, pressure, outside forces, or anything like that... Then I would have just dived in trying to save ONE living organism. Wouldn't matter if it was the dog or not. But you see, I naturally act upon what people say about me. I know it's a bad thing, but if someone's child was drowning, and I saved the child, they would have praised me. But, if I had saved the dog, they would have hated me forever. That's one outside force that led me to choose saving the baby.

What I'm getting at is, not only do we hold our own kind at more importance then we do other species, (A sort of Human Nationalism), but we are all afraid of what others might say, even if we pretend not to be. Killing a baby is considered murder, while killing a dog isn't really considered anything but animal abuse.

I'm not saying that, by letting a baby drown, you are therefore killing him yourself; but you get what I mean. I wish that we could all see each other equally, but it just won't do. An outside force will usually determine our decision

So, my opening post considered this basic right, the right not to be treated as a means. We succeed in a basic right equality for all homo sapiens. My suggestion is that we should extend this to sentient beings: that is not only possible, it is more in line with our antidscrimination principle.

It's all about Affinity.

When my child begs for a puppy, I might buy one.

By buying the puppy, I did not consciously agree to die.

However, as soon as I allow affiinty, it comes under my sphere of protection. If someone attempts to kill the pup, it will be my duty to stop that at any cost to myself. If I have time to derliberate, I will choose to allow the pup to be killed rather than myself, but that doesn't matter so much at the moment when a member of the set of things under my sphere of infuence is threatened.