I’m not yet quite sure what side you’re on in this debate. If that matters... I’ve read enough of Anse’s posts on this subject over the years to know pretty much exactly what he believes and how he feels about it. I was hoping he might feel moved to explain a bit more about why he feels so strongly, but I guess that’s not happening. Oh well...

Anyway, I’ve read many of your posts on this topic and in general I have to say I agree with some of your particular points, but I’m somewhat bemused by many of your general conclusions. To wit:

shusaku:

“IMHO, all humans have rights because all humans can recognize and reason about their existence.”

That’s generally but not universally true. We all know that there are impaired humans who are no more capable of recognizing and reasoning about their existence than is the average chimp. Heck, my dog has more ability to appreciate her existence than do some poor souls.

shusaku:

“Animals don't have rights because rights are a human construct and therefore useless to the survival of other species.”

Hmmm… Of course I agree that the concept of “rights” as such is a human construct. But the basic moral/ethical impulses that give rise to our notions of rights are not all exclusively human – at least they don’t appear to be. Clearly we have some common mental/emotional ground with any number of other species. But even if we didn’t, what of it? It seems to me that if we decide that species X has some fundamental right to exist, that decision may very well impact the long-term survival of species X.

shusaku:

“The specifics of which humans get rights and which don't is a complex nuanced question that is irrelevant to the question of whether animals have rights.”

Well, I agree that discussions about when and why various humans are imbued with particular rights are (or should be) complex and nuanced. But I don’t see any compelling reason to exclude non-humans from consideration in our (hopefully) complex and nuanced debates about rights and duties and privileges.

So let me ask you directly the same question I’ve posed to others: Do you think an adult human with the IQ of a four year-old has rights per se? After all, one can reasonably argue that such a being is no more capable of recognizing and pondering his or her existence than are some non-humans. Does the fact that one being has purely human DNA make all the difference?

Cheers.