FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Noam Chomsky on whether animals have the same rights as human beings

Noam Chomsky on whether animals have the same rights as human beings

(3:08) It's a fact that animals don't have responsibilities, so does that mean they don't have rights either? Full interview: youtu.be/q3uDEXyWfRc

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (74 days ago)

You cannot link having responsibilities with rights. A new born child has no responsibilities but has more rights than a dog or cow.

Original comment

You cannot link having responsibilities with rights. A new born child has no responsibilities but has more rights than a dog or cow.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (74 days ago)

1) a newborn child will have responsibilites in the future. Dogs and cows won't.

2) Newborn children do have rights - like a right to life. I could kill a dog or cow with minimal consequences - but I'd be in serious trouble for killing a baby

Original comment

1) a newborn child will have responsibilites in the future. Dogs and cows won't.

2) Newborn children do have rights - like a right to life. I could kill a dog or cow with minimal consequences - but I'd be in serious trouble for killing a baby

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (74 days ago)

Not all people have future responsibilities. You can be born retarded and put into an institution with absolutely no responsibilities. In many of those cases, you're not even accountable for your actions. Those people still have more rights than any non-human animal.

A police dog has rights. A dog's "telling" about the scent of drugs in a car gives cops the right to invalidate your 4th ammendemnt rights. In the court case Trammel v Thomason, where the police dog attacked the wrong person and held him for an excessive period of time and the cops did not release the dog even after realizing they had the wrong person ("victim underwent four operations and was hospitalized for eighteen days after police dog repeatedly bit his throat") the courts conclusion was in favor of the city.

Regarding minimal consequences for killing a dog, "Under the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act, anyone convicted of purposely assaulting, maiming, or killing federal law enforcement animals such as police dogs and horses could be fined at least $1,000 and spend up to 10 years in prison." Rocco's Law in Pennsylvania has a $25,000 fine and 10 year sentence.

Original comment

Not all people have future responsibilities. You can be born retarded and put into an institution with absolutely no responsibilities. In many of those cases, you're not even accountable for your actions. Those people still have more rights than any non-human animal.

A police dog has rights. A dog's "telling" about the scent of drugs in a car gives cops the right to invalidate your 4th ammendemnt rights. In the court case Trammel v Thomason, where the police dog attacked the wrong person and held him for an excessive period of time and the cops did not release the dog even after realizing they had the wrong person ("victim underwent four operations and was hospitalized for eighteen days after police dog repeatedly bit his throat") the courts conclusion was in favor of the city.

Regarding minimal consequences for killing a dog, "Under the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act, anyone convicted of purposely assaulting, maiming, or killing federal law enforcement animals such as police dogs and horses could be fined at least $1,000 and spend up to 10 years in prison." Rocco's Law in Pennsylvania has a $25,000 fine and 10 year sentence.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (74 days ago)

Well yes, but generally the suggestion is that if you have rights, there's a trade-off that you also have responsibilities. Obviously we can invent a society where you have responsibilities but no rights (like being a slave), but it's hard to imagine a well-functioning society that doesn't offer the rights/responsibilites deal.

You pay your taxes (responsibility) and get to call on the state to help stop people stealing from you or killing you (rights to property and pursuit of happiness).

Do Libertarians not go with that deal?

Original comment

Well yes, but generally the suggestion is that if you have rights, there's a trade-off that you also have responsibilities. Obviously we can invent a society where you have responsibilities but no rights (like being a slave), but it's hard to imagine a well-functioning society that doesn't offer the rights/responsibilites deal.

You pay your taxes (responsibility) and get to call on the state to help stop people stealing from you or killing you (rights to property and pursuit of happiness).

Do Libertarians not go with that deal?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (74 days ago)

Now you're trying to turn this into a political dicussion.

I just wanted to state that you cannot link responsibilities with rights. Animals do have some rights but hardly any responsibilities. They do not have all the same rights as humans. And in some countries, women have many responsibilities but not as many rights as the men. Noam is just babbling nonsence out of his butt as usual.

Original comment

Now you're trying to turn this into a political dicussion.

I just wanted to state that you cannot link responsibilities with rights. Animals do have some rights but hardly any responsibilities. They do not have all the same rights as humans. And in some countries, women have many responsibilities but not as many rights as the men. Noam is just babbling nonsence out of his butt as usual.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (74 days ago)
Latest comment:

Sorry - thought you were going down the Libertarian route and were going to insist that you only have a responsibility to yourself - or something (Anyway, I'd still be interested in your answer to that).

I think you're wrong: obviously you can link rights and responsibilities (which Chomsky and other philosophers do) but it's a construct rather than a physical law. We cannot ignore the law of gravity, but we can ignore the rights/responsibilities link - like slaveholders did.

According to their owner, slaves had the responsibility to work hard but no substantive corresponding rights. Most people now think this is wrong so this kind of relationship has been abolished.

I think the question is around "How do we want people in a society to relate to each other?" So yes, said the founding fathers, Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but you can't carry on claiming those rights if you go round stealing and killing.

So, simply, if you want the rights a society extends to its members you have (generally) to offer something in return (pay taxes, join the militia, not kill your neighbour, steal his ass, covet his ox).... and that's the trade-off that we think should take place if you want to join our gang.

OK, it doesn't have to take place but if you don't buy into it we'll either hit you with sanctions (and send you to prison) or we won't let you join our gang.

Do you agree with this - and if so, how is it different from what Chomsky is sayng?

Original comment
Latest comment:

Sorry - thought you were going down the Libertarian route and were going to insist that you only have a responsibility to yourself - or something (Anyway, I'd still be interested in your answer to that).

I think you're wrong: obviously you can link rights and responsibilities (which Chomsky and other philosophers do) but it's a construct rather than a physical law. We cannot ignore the law of gravity, but we can ignore the rights/responsibilities link - like slaveholders did.

According to their owner, slaves had the responsibility to work hard but no substantive corresponding rights. Most people now think this is wrong so this kind of relationship has been abolished.

I think the question is around "How do we want people in a society to relate to each other?" So yes, said the founding fathers, Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but you can't carry on claiming those rights if you go round stealing and killing.

So, simply, if you want the rights a society extends to its members you have (generally) to offer something in return (pay taxes, join the militia, not kill your neighbour, steal his ass, covet his ox).... and that's the trade-off that we think should take place if you want to join our gang.

OK, it doesn't have to take place but if you don't buy into it we'll either hit you with sanctions (and send you to prison) or we won't let you join our gang.

Do you agree with this - and if so, how is it different from what Chomsky is sayng?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (74 days ago)

Chomsky said that we give infants rights, because they are same species.

Original comment

Chomsky said that we give infants rights, because they are same species.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Noam Chomsky on whether animals have the same rights as human beings
Noam Chomsky on whether animals have the same rights as human beings
Activists fly drone over California's stinkiest cattle ranch
Activists fly drone over California's stinkiest cattle ranch
Wild animals never kill for sport
Wild animals never kill for sport
CEO responds to animal rights activist break-in at Rayfish Footwear
CEO responds to animal rights activist break-in at Rayfish Footwear