Re: Humans ARE Animals

You are nearly correct that there is no such thing as an inherent right in much the same way as there is no such thing as color, but as Lawrence Kohlberg has documented the highest levels of moral reasoning assume them.

This isn't really the same thing. It's not correct to say there's no such thing as color. Color is a phenomenon which can be observed and therefore has an empirical source. Now, color may be largely conceptual, but it has empirical roots which can be independently verified. Rights and morality, however, are entirely conceptual. They cannot be verified empirically or logically. Now, you can make logical statements about morals in the same sense that you can about anything conceptual or invented.

Example:

1. Some horses are pegasi.

2. All pegasi have wings.

3. Ergo, some horses have wings.

That is a correct statement logically, but it tells us nothing about whether pegasi (or horses for that matter) are real and verifiable things. The same holds true for statements regarding morality or rights. Assuming the existence of rights or morals a priori and then operating from that assumption is begging the question. Rights exist because we have brought them into being, not because they already existed. The truth matters.