There is no philosophica or logical problem. All "paradoxes" are swept away by the position that neither humans, at any stage of development, nor animals, have any "rights". There are no logical contradictions in this position.

The only objection that one might have is that one doesn't like this solution. That is, an aesthetic objection. But if the aim of your ethical investigations is merely to come up with an answer that you like, why bother? Why not cut directly to the chase and pick the solution you like? "It's ok to kill non-human apes but not humans, because I like it that way." "All human beings have the right to life, from the moment of conception, because I'm most comfortable with that." "People of genetic ancestry X have full rights, those of genetic ancestry Y have greatly diminished rights. I like it that way." "All humans are equal in rights, because I'm uncomfortable with it any other way."

Such debates just come down to an undecidable question of subjective taste anyway.

Also,

"We understand that there's something wonderful and uniquely worthy of respect in the power, richness, and subtlety of the human mind."

Is there?

And what exactly does the mind and consciousness have to do with rights, anyway? The logical link is hard to perceive (I'm being facetious; everyone knows that there is no logical justification of rights in the first place). Saying it comes from mental abilities and consciousness just introduces a standard, but it doesn't justify that standard. Once again, the justification is just "it pleases me".

I happen to agree with you for the most part, but I doubt that many will. Very few people seem comfortable with the concept of no absolute right or wrong and no such thing as inherent rights. There aren't many utilitarians out there, which is why arguments about abortion are almost all about "women's choice" vs. "right to life" instead of about the positives and negatives that abortion has for society in general.

It seems that Saletan is searching for some consistant ideology (at least that's what I get out of all the "indiscriminateness" talk) that will tell us scientifically which animals deserve which rights. That's fine, but it seems like a fruitless search for many of the reasons you brought up. If our empathy for animals overcomes our conflicting needs/desires (for meat/hunting/the need to feel superior), that's when animals will start getting more rights.

Still, in defense of Saletans piece, there is nothing wrong with deciding on standards based on biological factors. If we can determine that certain animals can suffer and others can't, well, that's as good a standard as any to base animal rights laws on. He just seems to be missing the practicality argument. If we find something inconvenient in those biological studies (Cows hate being milked!!!), you can bet people will find a way to justify doing whatever we want. Ideology has nothing to do with it. As much as we try to eliminate "might makes right" from our societies, it's still the law of nature and difficult to escape.

"And what exactly does the mind and consciousness have to do with rights, anyway? The logical link is hard to perceive"

The notion of rights was created from the human mind. Hence, there is a direct link between the human mind and rights. And yes, there is something uniquely worthy of respect in the human mind: the ability to reason about unobservable phenomena like rights. Name me one animal that can reason about unobservable phenomena (excluding cephelapods).

"All "paradoxes" are swept away by the position that neither humans, at any stage of development, nor animals, have any 'rights'. There are no logical contradictions in this position."

If nothing has rights, according to your logic, then rights are useless. So why do they exist, why did humans create them, and why do humans rise up to do great things because of them? Furthermore, your position absolves yourself from internal logical contradiction because your position is cowardly; it refuses to make any distinctions whatsoever. Instead of taking a position on the issue of how rights should be granted you state that nothing has rights making the issue meaningless. By stating that nothing has rights, you make an argument that is not testable and therefore impervious to debate.

shusaku:

If nothing has rights, according to your logic, then rights are useless. So why do they exist, why did humans create them, and why do humans rise up to do great things because of them?

Zydborg never said that rights are useless, just that nothing has any objectively determinable intrinsic rights. "Rights," as a human construct, serve human purposes. Zydborg is arguing that those rights are subjectively assigned and no amount of objective analysis can determine what those rights should be.

shusaku:

Furthermore, your position absolves yourself from internal logical contradiction because your position is cowardly; it refuses to make any distinctions whatsoever. Instead of taking a position on the issue of how rights should be granted you state that nothing has rights making the issue meaningless. By stating that nothing has rights, you make an argument that is not testable and therefore impervious to debate.

Zydborg didn't say whether or not he had an opinion; if he does, I'm sure it's a subjective one. I think the extension of his reasoning is that rights are assigned by people convincing each other of their subjective preferences.

I completely agree with this argument. Rights are incredibly subjective based on one's cultural practices. Where a certain group of people in one place may believe that a certain act is necessary to survive another group will have a completely different opinion. It is impossible to say that things *should* be a particular way, because nothing *should* be any certain way. Life and opinion are malleable.

Oops, my mistake. I misunderstood his argument. I thought he was arguing that rights aren't useful, not that rights are not objective. In that case, I would agree with his argument that rights are primarily a subjective/interpretive human construct, however by extension, animal rights is something of an oxymoron (since animals do not use human constructs).

You're so right. This issue is not testable by debate. That is the argument. I can't make a peach, fly, lift ten times my weight, run 60 miles an hour, or swim up the Kenai River. The assertion on it's face cannot be proven simply because you, or ten billion other bipeds claiming special powers wish it so. Even if it is the case that humans possess certain abilities that other animals or life forms on this planet don't possess why would that condition, in itself, afford you the 'right' (except that you wish it and have the power to effect it) to place your will above those of other creatures. Humans created 'rights' because (most of the time), it's an easier softer way than war and mayhem. There are no rights without to the power to secure them. When the power changes so do the rights. Ask any native American how this works.

Actually, the scientific method has determined that non-human species cannot reason about unobservable phenomena like the human construct of "rights". Simply go to pubmed.org, and search for any reviews by Daniel Povinelli or Derek Penn on that matter. Therefore awarding "rights" to an animal would be the equivalent of giving every ape a car; you may think that the animal would appreciate the gift of driving but instead the apes will just crap all over it, literally.