Treatment vs. Rights

[Kanastrous]

In the last election California passed a state initiative requiring that by 2015 farm animals be kept in certain minimal conditions that, for example, permit the individual animals to stand, turn around, and extend their limbs.

This initiative is usually described as granting or protecting 'animal rights.'

While I'm perfectly happy to see humane standards in place for the treatment of farm animals, something bothers me about calling this set of requirements "rights." It seems to me that this set of rules is better described not as rights that the animals have, but rather as obligations toward those animals on the part of their keepers - compliance with which will be required subject to force of law.

Is this a false distinction? Is mandating certain behavior on the part of the animals' keepers, interchangeable with the idea that the animals have a 'right' to be treated in a certain way?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Is this a false distinction? Is mandating certain behavior on the part of the animals' keepers, interchangeable with the idea that the animals have a 'right' to be treated in a certain way?

In a way, yes. A right, in the broadest sense is an obligation owed to a being by another. Either a negative obligation (non-interference) or a positive obligation (a positive duty to action)

Most people when talking about animal rights are merely using the term for those sorts of obligations. They are not talking about Rights Theory in the sense that Tom Regan or John Locke would have referred to them.

[Metatwaddle]

Is this a false distinction? Is mandating certain behavior on the part of the animals' keepers, interchangeable with the idea that the animals have a 'right' to be treated in a certain way?

In a way, yes. A right, in the broadest sense is an obligation owed to a being by another. Either a negative obligation (non-interference) or a positive obligation (a positive duty to action)

Most people when talking about animal rights are merely using the term for those sorts of obligations. They are not talking about Rights Theory in the sense that Tom Regan or John Locke would have referred to them.

It is very possible to fit animal rights into rights theory. Animals could have general negative rights, like the right not to be extremely physically constrained. Under rights theory, there can also be specific positive rights when a relationship between two persons calls for it, and the animal/keeper relationship seems to fit - so you could say that domesticated animals have a specific positive right to be fed by their owners, with healthy amounts and types of food. California's new law seems entirely consistent with either one.

But yeah, people tend to use "rights" in ways that are less precise than philosophers' usage of the term, which is why you get goofy stuff like Peter Singer being called the "father of the animal rights movement" when he's not a rights theorist at all. Actually, I hear the hardcore animal rights people don't like him too much, because he's not extreme enough for them.

[Coyote]

So, "rights" are something that are granted or extended from a powerbroker to a recipient? Does that imply that those rights can therefore be taken away... which would mean they are not rights but rather, privilidges?

I never knew there was such a thing as "rights theory"... but it seems there are murky areas. For example, a person who commits murder has some of his rights taken away (freedom to assemble, privacy, etc) but he doesn't have all his rights taken away because at some point there is the concept of excesssive punishment.

[Kanastrous]

Murderers can be legally deprived of the right to live.

That's pretty much all your rights, taken away.

[Coyote]

Murderers can be legally deprived of the right to live.

That's pretty much all your rights, taken away.

Yes, but I think you know what I mean-- even when you're a prisoner, you have certain rights, and even if you are sentenced to death there are certain ways that it has to be done because other ways might deprive the prisoner of his right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.

[Kanastrous]

Got it.