RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Thank you for the response.First I think I have to point out that the statement assumes that such things as rights exist. I'm very willing to make that assumption for the sake of argument.
Second, I think one of the problems with the above is that "wilderness" is a vague term. What does it mean, exactly? Clearly it refers to places where human impact is relatively minor.
Perhaps, then, what is being suggested by the statement "wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake" is that the other species that exist within that wilderness have a right to life.
For at least some species I agree with that. I think anyone who would kill a gorilla is a monster, but for them to live, the wilderness of which they are a part must remain intact. The wilderness is all the plants and animals that make it up (obviously), and I feel quite strongly that they have a right to exist.
Someone could make the argument that nothing (including all of us) has rights, which is fine. But what I can't agree with is that our lives are meaningful, and that we thus have a right to them, but the lives of other species are not, and that they thus have no right to them.
In short, if we have no right to live, then I can accept that maybe other species don't either. On the other hand, if we do, I'd like to see what it is that gives us that right, and why it is that no other species has that quality.
I don't know what was meant by "wilderness". It was not my term. I find the statement to be too vague. But let's accept your definition for purposes of this discussion.
Rights are a human construct. *No other species even considers rights for itself or others.
Does the Gorilla feel quite strongly that it has a right to exist? Would a non-human predator be immoral if it killed a Gorilla?...I feel quite strongly that they have a right to exist.
Clearly rights are something that humans grant to others. The basis of those rights are feelings. For many of us our conscious would be offended if we killed or allowed others to kill gorillas. Your own words demonstrate that the offense exists in your mind. There is nothing intrinsic in nature that would give rights to gorillas. On the contrary, it is only how you feel. And that is fine but in the end it is your opinion.
I'll grant that you make a coherent argument. If humans have a right to exist then, to you, gorillas also have a right to exist. That is all well and good but it doesn't equate to the notion that gorillas have a right to exist for their own sake. In the end it is for your sake. It is for how you feel. How you would feel if they were killed. You are capable of empathy and you are capable of feeling empathy for the gorilla. That is where any right comes from.
*As far as we know.