Correction: Calcularor wrote:

“I asked about human rights and international law studies because they do include both legal and natural/moral rights. I have studies them, and the issue of animal rights did pop up”.

I misunderstood the last sentence and took it as “did not pop up”.

Well, essentially my reply still stands. If the issue, as Calculator described it, “popped up”, then it didn’t get the depth required for one to be properly informed. This, of course, is understandable given that the studies were on human rights, and not animal rights.

“I give up. I don’t see humanity as the only thing that matters, but I do see it as having an intrinsic value not found in other species”.

That much is as obvious as it is irrelevant to the question of just treatment. Unless by intrinsic value you mean a “soul” to which I would reply by asking for proof of both the existence of souls and proof of its absence in non-human animals. I would then ask what relevance having a soul has to right treatment.

“You can get it from God if you’re religious or from some idea of the capacity of humanity to transcend its instincts and biology if you’re not”.

You will find some unfortunate humans who also act exclusively on instinct. I would not strip them of moral rights. So you’re once again left with the partial and subjective claim that to have rights one has to be human.

“And just because you don’t seem to find the same value in humanity doesn’t make it false”.

I suppose you mean that all humans share an equal intrinsic value. They don’t, and I would take offence at being told I have the same intrinsic value as Hitler or Stalin.

“I subscribe to the universalist view that rights are inherent irrespective of the respect shown to them”.

Then we are in agreement here.

“I asked about human rights and international law studies because they do include both legal and natural/moral rights. I have studies them, and the issue of animal rights did pop up”.

Of course it didn’t. That’s for two reasons: International law does not recognise non-human animals as rights-bearers, and the lecturers/authors do not recognise animal rights themselves. I would suggest you look further than that. There are plenty of academic works on animal rights. I have several in my library.

“And guess what? Yes they deserve respect, as much as we need to respect all of nature, but that’s it”.

Hence lies the confusion. A tree does not deserve respect, and only psycho-hippies believe they do. We only “protect” trees out of respect for other humans (and perhaps other animals). With animals it is different. If animals deserve respect (and they do), then it follows that they have a right to that respect. Of course, what kind of respect they are entitled to necessitates a book-length study. There are several of these, if anyone cares to look.

“They don’t have ‘rights’ because the term is linked to the human condition”.

Again, partial and arbitrary. You need to defend that claim with proper arguments.

“It’s not silly misconceptions, just logic”.

I’m waiting for you to explain the logic.

“And just because some theorists are trying to label whatever responsibilities to animals we have as ‘rights’ doesn’t make them right”.

You will also find philosophers who unlike me, dismiss inherent rights in humans, and only use the label “rights” for convenience (for instance most Utilitarians). Of course, as you say, just mentioning that some people believe in something doesn’t make them right. This applies equally to you and me.

“In my view it just means that they don’t understand that ‘rights’ are linked to humanity by virtue of its intrinsic value”.

Arbitrary, partial and without any shred of justification.

“So yes, I dismiss their theories”.

I’m convinced you have never even read a summary of the theories, let alone a whole book. I call that prejudice.

“It’s rather ironic you don’t, seeing as such a principle of the value of humanity and the consequent rights are the cornerstone of liberal thought, Mr. ‘Liberal’”.

I do value humanity and their rights, so what exactly are you on about? I simply extend some rights (the applicable ones) to non-human animals. Is this so hard to understand?

“I suggest you change your username to fit in with your views”.

It does, so I’ll keep it, thank you.

“If you want to reduce your rights to just one type that is accorded to every species, irrespective of any repesctive dignity or worth, go ahead. Cheapen yourself all you want.”

I never even suggested any such silly thing.

“At least we can agree that the ‘Parliamentary Secretary on Animal Rights’ is a silly post and ineffective against the hunting lobby”.

Of course. It is also offensive to people who believe in animal rights. But since I have a healthy sense of humour, I respond to offence with ridicule. And ridiculous they really are.

I never heard of a ‘right to kill’ as being to attributed to humans

I give up. I don’t see humanity as the only thing that matters, but I do see it as having an intrinsic value not found in other species. You can get it from God if you’re religious or from some idea of the capacity of humanity to transcend its instincts and biology if you’re not. And just because you don’t seem to find the same value in humanity doesn’t make it false. I subscribe to the universalist view that rights are inherent irrespective of the respect shown to them.

I asked about human rights and international law studies because they do include both legal and natural/moral rights. I have studies them, and the issue of animal rights did pop up. And guess what? Yes they deserve respect, as much as we need to respect all of nature, but that’s it. They don’t have ‘rights’ because the term is linked to the human condition. It’s not silly misconceptions, just logic.

And just because some theorists are trying to label whatever responsibilities to animals we have as ‘rights’ doesn’t make them right. In my view it just means that they don’t understand that ‘rights’ are linked to humanity by virtue of its intrinsic value. So yes, I dismiss their theories.

It’s rather ironic you don’t, seeing as such a principle of the value of humanity and the consequent rights are the cornerstone of liberal thought, Mr. ‘Liberal’. I suggest you change your username to fit in with your views.

If you want to reduce your rights to just one type that is accorded to every species, irrespective of any repesctive dignity or worth, go ahead. Cheapen yourself all you want.

At least we can agree that the ‘Parliamentary Secretary on Animal Rights’ is a silly post and ineffective against the hunting lobby.

“Babies are human beings”

True, but they don’t have any obligations. Therefore the claim that to have rights one must have obligations is clearly false unless one is prepared to strip rights from persons who cannot have obligations.

“and morality is only assigned to humans; namely issues regarding right and wrong actions”.

That is an unsupported arbitrary claim. Moral rights is not only about right action we are bound to perform, but also about right action individuals are entitled to receive. Return to my babies example and you will understand.

“It is the parents/guardians that have an obligation to protect vulnerable children until they become adults”.

Partially true. While it is guardians who have the responsibility to protect the vulnerable, it is everyone’s obligation to treat them justly.

“You could have made your question more complex by asking me about the rights of embryos frozen or otherwise and you would have taken me out of depth?”

I can’t see the relevance.

We do not hate hunters. We hate hunting.

Babies are human beings and morality is only assigned to humans; namely issues regarding right and wrong actions. It is the parents/guardians that have an obligation to protect vulnerable children until they become adults.

You could have made your question more complex by asking me about the rights of embryos frozen or otherwise and you would have taken me out of depth?

Oh how exquisite these hunter-haters’.

Please stand still while I take aim

I predict that there will be a huge spike in illegal hunting as well as bullying, threatening of CABS members and anyone else who dares question the hunters’ authority, ‘għax issa l-gvern tagħna’.

It’s going to be Malta tagħna lkoll at its very best.

I hope the press keeps an eye on the situation.