[Sticks]

This is an odd one I picked up from some place in the dim and distant past.


The argument goes like this

You can not have rights without responsibilities.

Since animals and young children do not have responsibilities in law, then children and animals do not have any rights whatsoever.

Adults may have a duty of care, but that is a different matter.

Anyone else heard of this argument?

Does it philosophically hold water?

[Sunny_01]

Nope I think it is something said by someone who would like to think they do not have rights.

Children have exactly the same rights as adults with the additional one of having the right to be protected from harm.

Animals have the right to be treated in a humane manner.

[Captain.Remy]

Both have rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child for children and same for the animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
http://www.unicef.org/crc/

Kind of surprising you did not know that Sticks.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by Captain.Remy
Both have rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child for children and same for the animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
http://www.unicef.org/crc/

Kind of surprising you did not know that Sticks.

According to the Wiki article about "animal rights"

Critics of the concept of animal rights argue that animals do not have the capacity to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and therefore cannot be regarded as possessors of moral rights. The philosopher Roger Scruton argues that only human beings have duties and that "[t]he corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights." Critics holding this position argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for food, as entertainment, and in research, though human beings may nevertheless have an obligation to ensure they do not suffer unnecessarily.

As to the Children's rights issue, what we have is some kind of supra national statutory body explicitly having to say they exist, and one has to assume that the UK has ratified this convention, so it applies here. It comes across as "plugging a loophole" caused by the possible moral and philosophical link between rights and responsibilities. i.e some one spotted that children did not have rights and thought that they ought to, even though they did not have any corresponding responsibilities.

If that makes any sense

It is clear and undeniable that children and animals have protections in law and those over them have obligations for their care, but is that the same thing as rights? - There's the rub

[Captain.Remy]

Both are alive beings so they may not have responsabilities but it doesn't mean they can't have rights. And the rights are not made on 'who has reponsabilities or not'

[Sticks]

According to a Google search the phrase "No rights without responsibilities" was used a lot by New Labour

[Captain.Remy]

Message original : Sticks
According to a Google search the phrase "No rights without responsibilities" was used a lot by New Labour

It's not surprising, all the same.

[bridge7too7far]

A child can divorse his parents an animal can svage you when it wants

[Matt10k]

Originally posted by Sticks
According to a Google search the phrase "No rights without responsibilities" was used a lot by New Labour

You can take any speech/ phrase out of context.

Ask anyone in the labour party if they believe children have rights- I think you'll find they'd all say yes.

[secrets]

i believe that all animals have rights,and cruelty to animals is abhorant .
i have seen some appalling cruelty in the Middle east to animals,and its sickening.

[Sticks]

getting back to the main argument, it does not mean adults can be cruel to children and annimals as we have responsibilities to obey the law which gives them legal protection.

So this ends up in the philosophical realms, assuming New Labour do not have the copyright on the phrase No rights without responsibilities

[Tom]

I think every animal (including humans) have rights, you don't necessarily have to have responsibilities. I'd say the main rights for a human include the right to life which includes the right to essential items such as food, water etc and animals do have rights, although if animals are being killed for food instead of the right to life they have the right to a good and enjoyable life and the right to be killed humanely.

[MarkWaldorf]

Every living thing has rights. End of.

[*mazedsalv**]

Both have rights imo.

[Xander]

Both have rights, there both living things.

[Sam!]

I think they both have rights. Its not like someone can just go and kill a child and get away with it. Then again thats different with animals.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by Scampi
Its not like someone can just go and kill a child and get away with it.

According to the original argument of "No rights without responsibilities" as adults, who have rights we also have the responsibility to obey the law of the land, which prohibits the killing of a child. So just because, according to this argument a child may not have any rights, it does not mean it's open season on them.

To put it another way, a child may not in theory have the right to life, the most basic of the rights quoted, but adults have a responsibility to keep the child from harm and to preserve it's life. So that way they are protected.

If that makes sense

It is a similar argument with animals.

[James]

Clearly children and animals do have rights because they are protected by laws. 'Protection in law' is just another way of saying 'rights' - they basically are the same thing.

Responsibilites don't come into it.

[Sticks]

Some plants, like rare orchids have legal protection under various Wildlife and countryside acts, so does it follow that the plant has rights?

[Sunny_01]

I think that talking about plants etc.. is clasping at straws to use as an example.

Children and animals have a key right and that is to be protected by those who care for them. I dont agree that with rights comes responsibility, we have a huge vulnerable group of children, adults, animals in this country and to say they have to be responsible seems mad.

[Harry!]

All creatures have rights!

[Sticks]

Have not got time to read this in full, but I found this article

What I have gleaned so far is that it talks about legal rights and moral rights.

Children and animals are granted by statute law, legal rights, but this may not be the same thing as moral rights. It seems the philosophy I heard of, no rights with out responsibilities refers to moral rights and some people here refer to legal rights.

So perhaps we have been talking cross purposes.

[LadyPortia]

All children and animals have rights on paper and in law.

But in secret family courts- that is not the reality.

Children in the care system are supposed to have a voice and say if they are being abused or not.

That is a LIE.

A lot of abuse is covered up in the care system in case people discover truth.

Like thousands of children disappearing from care every year.

Do you see it reported??

There is the answer.

[bigbr0ther]

Are you saying they do have rights or they should have rights?

As it is, animals and children don't have basic rights.

Animals don't have the right to live, one of the most basic freedoms that we humans take for granted.

Children don't have the right to vote, drive, drink, or even go outside at certain times, and they face constant discrimination.

I think what you're saying though is that animals and children should have rights. With this I agree completely, for the reason that no one chooses what species or what age to be.

[xSammyx]

Animals have rights to a point,
but if everyone believed they did then everyone would be vegetarians wouldnt they?

Of course children have the same rights as adults.