Another source of light pollution

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 20:08:09 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

A law against cruelty to animals does not mean that animals have
rights.

From a human perspective it certainly does.

I disagree. We have laws here in my state against defacing natural
features, such as rocks or trees. Does that mean rocks and trees have
rights? I think that's stretching the definition a lot farther than it
can reasonably go.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:50:09 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 20:08:09 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


A law against cruelty to animals does not mean that animals have
rights.

From a human perspective it certainly does.

I disagree. We have laws here in my state against defacing natural
features, such as rocks or trees. Does that mean rocks and trees
have
rights? I think that's stretching the definition a lot farther than
it
can reasonably go.

Rocks cannot suffer. Animals can suffer.

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 12:09:29 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Rocks cannot suffer. Animals can suffer.

That's true. But since there are laws against defacing rocks, although
rocks, because they can't suffer, can't have rights, then while
animals could have rights, because they can suffer, for animals to
have rights is still not a necessary condition for a law against
cruelty to animals to exist.

That law could have been enacted based on a rationale which did not
involve ascribing rights to animals.

Possible such rationales:

Humans form emotional attachments to animals. Threats to injure their pets, therefore, could be used for blackmail; thus, laws governing the treatment of animals need to be more severe than other laws relating to damage to property in order to more effectively deter such actions.

Animals are living beings that resemble humans. A law prohibiting cruelty to animals gives the authorities the power to intervene when someone with sadistic tendencies begins to practice his arts on animals which are easier targets than humans.

It is sufficiently unclear as to whether animals have rights that at least some voters either think they have rights, or at least that their interests have some value. A law accommodating this belief doesn't restrict individual liberty in a significant way, and so is a useful investment in social harmony, given a diverse, pluralistic society.

So there are all kinds of scenarios under which a society could fail
to acknowledge that animals have rights, and yet enact a law against
cruelty to animals. (Whether or not they do in fact have rights,
however, is too complicated a question for me to really begin to wade
into.)

John Savard

On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 08:09:25 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:50:09 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 20:08:09 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


A law against cruelty to animals does not mean that animals have
rights.

From a human perspective it certainly does.

I disagree. We have laws here in my state against defacing natural
features, such as rocks or trees. Does that mean rocks and trees
have
rights? I think that's stretching the definition a lot farther than
it
can reasonably go.

Rocks cannot suffer. Animals can suffer.

That is not scientifically obvious. Non-human animals can feel pain.
But pain and suffering are very different things. Suffering requires
sentience and self-reflection- something we do not know with certainty
exists in any animals besides humans.